My 2 cents would be we are a nation in turmoil,It just keeps getting worse an worse.Icant understand why there are people starving in our country?Idont understand why prayer or the pledge of allegiance is ridiculed in our shcools?And it sickens me to watch a man welcome home the bodies of our soldiers while entertianing the thought of sending more.Iguess theres just a lot Idont understand.IMHO.could very well stand for"in my house only"

Yes, our nation was founded on Christian principles and the Bible. I have been through this before with Mcloud and I'm not going through it again. The man has a loathing for Christians and pastors (just ask him) It is men thinking like Mcloud, having no use for religion that has brought America where she is today.

Sadly i would have to say that at this point we are not a christian nation, we were however founded on the basis of christianity. one of americas major problems is that we have lost sight of our christian values. we have pretty much as a nation denied God(Triune Father, Son, Spirit) if we as a nation could go back to God we then may be able to solve some of the other problems we are facing. the only problem is people are to worried about themselves, and not willing to live by any standards, people would rather do what they want without any morals. we are unfortunately a corrupt sinful moral less nation.

The government hasn't... at least in a long, long time.

We must be aware that there are some religious practices out there that go against the laws of the land and that is where things can get out of hand. Animal sacrifice is not allowed. People get in trouble when they conduct "honor" killings, and so forth.

As for the Constitution, all it really says is "Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion..." The government has overstepped its bounds in removing God from everything. With everything going on in the world these days, do we really want to be doing this?

Well, you mention that the the states set these up. All the constitution says is that Congress is limited in their legislation. Whether by referendum or by local elected official, restrictions will be placed. I don't agree with it all, but I approve of governing on the local level as opposed to the federal level.

I meant that the federal government hasn't done pushed a religion on the people.

As for pushing the Biblical literalism into the public school science classrooms, many people believe that evolution is a form of atheism and therefor a "religion".

Well stated point of view, Bella. Plus one for that one!

WMH

In general people say that they make rational choices, but rare is the human who actually abides with reason. Humans usually base their decision making on emotional input rather than sober consideration of facts. Then after the fact they rationalize to support their emotional choice. Rationality is nice when you find it, but never expect it from your average Homo Sapiens, you'll be disappointed often.

Andy H. we never were a christian nation except rhetorically! Politicians frequently use their "christianity" as a flag for the gullible to line up behind. The politicians, self aggrandizing, truth bending sorts bent on political power are never christian by their actions, only by way of the blather they spew to shill for your vote. Many of the most "christian" pols, shrill in their claims of rightiousness are then caught fondling underage nubile of one gender or another, caught with hustlers and whores, or caught engaged in some morally dubious act or another that makes their supposed piety a brazen lie.
Our government itself cannot be called christian by it's actions, either. In past years our government has made war on other nations for reasons both justified and otherwise. While I will always support warfare when out cause is just, this has not been the case in recent years, where our government (albeit under "christian" leadership, caused people to be imprisoned tortured and killed, caused lands to be laid waste and cities burned none of which would ever be condoned by Jesus or ANY conceivable interpetation of his words as written in the new testament. If you go by old testiment standards, sure genocide, burning cities etc. perfectly cool with YHWH (He'd even help if you were CHOSEN). But that isn't christianity, which is focussed on the words and actions of Jesus rather than King David.
So no, our nation is not a christian nation except in rhetoric, neither its actions nor it's founding documents reflect christianity. American history does not reflect a pious people in a rightious nation. Rather the opposite! So claim America is christian if you like! It is still rhetoric,
stemming from one individuals desire to foist their own agenda on others religious agenda on others, a notion which is in itself very unchristian. People are supposed to be able to choose even if certain reactionaries would like to force the issue. So If you are a christian, good for you, go forth and heed the words of your Savior and "Judge not lest ye be judged and love thy neighbor as thyself" . Real christianity is very simple and very very hard especially for prideful self absorbed egotistical self rightious Americans. Try it out sometime.

I think I just found out your real reasoning behind this post. LOL

Your smarter than you give yourself credit sir.

You judge me wrongly.

I have never, to my knowledge, given you a -1, I think you’re entitled to believe what you wish and have faith in what you want. I have however given myself -1's probably as mush as you have given yourself +1's.

I do not believe in Separation of Church and State and never have, it is not in the Constitution.

I believe in freedom of Religion, if you can't see the difference then I will not be able to explain it to you. Not that you would lesson anyway.

Amazes me how well you have it figured out? We'll all find the answers soon enough.

Hateful, mmm? May I ask where you came up with that. And where you get I made up lies? I can tell, you like to base your bias on self-detained aggression. I will pray for you about that. Thanks for helping me understand your motives. Like I said you like to argue. God bless.

When you agree with passing laws to limit the free exercise of religion in Government, Schools ect... under the so called Establishment Clause "you claim," doesn't that contradict the right for free exercise of religion?

Could you show a copy of the Constitution your reading, cause I can't find?
""separation of church and state:
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, FIRST AMENDMENT, ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE:""

In my copy?

We have been based on biblical teaching, they are plasterd all over our nation. They defently played part in forming our Nation and are woven into the fabric of our society undeniably, though you will deny it. But someday you will have your Godless country and I'm sure you will be happy with that.

P.S. I agree with Obama that we are no longer a Christian nation. And I believe we once were. "But that’s just my opinion" and does not mean that the majority in the country have lost thier belief In Jesus Christ as there Lord and Savour nor Does it mean that the majority believe as Bella. Nor does it mean the majority are Muslims. But it does seem that a few people seem to have more tolerance for many other religions, as long as it's not Christianity.

A Principle of The Traditional American Philosophy

3. Unalienable Rights - From God

". . . endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights . . ." (Declaration of Independence)

The Principle
1. The traditional American philosophy teaches that Man, The Individual, is endowed at birth with rights which are unalienable because given by his Creator.

Bella, you laid out your argument very well.

As for the Christians out there, I claim (with Biblical verification) that ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Christians are just as sinful as the next guy. The primary thing that really separates Christians is the fact that they have put their faith in Jesus to interced on their behalf and to focus their life on glorifying God. Even then we all still see many failures out there.

I will admit that I do not know a lot about the Tibetan Buddhists, but I do know that the gospels are very clear that Jesus is the only path to heaven, and thus cannot exist as a co-religion with others. What I'm claiming is that to believe in the Bible, then other religions cannot be added in alongside because it teaches that Jesus is the only path.

I agree with your assessment that there is no conflict between science and religion. Both have been used and abused to further those seeking power and control over the years (global warming anyone?) yet science and religion are man-made entities. Science was created to investigate and learn about the natural world around us. Religion was created by man to understand diety. Both were created to investigate, and although on a parallel path, do not really intersect.

The reference to Stalinism is a bit off in my opinion. As a Christian, I believe that all men have a free choice in what they believe. If God chose to reveal himself to all with a great booming voice from heaven every day at noon, then who would believe in anything different? I believe that God reveals himself in subtle ways and speaks to the hearts of those who are ready for belief. I cannot make anybody else a Christian, and God doesn't force it on anyone. My job is to try to point the way and tell of what He has done in my life. I have a problem with Christians trying to make people culturally "Christian" before that person's heart is in order. I do swear fealty to God. He has changed my life for the better to such a magnitude that I will eternally grateful. I cannot help but to praise Him every day. I'll definitely slip up here and there, but I never claimed to be perfect. All I can do is keep on trying.

Well the fact that life begins at birth has yet to be proven scientifically. The baby doesn't get to choose life or death. I do think that if someone were sucking puppies out of a dog before they were born then the average person would call the authorities on them. I regard human life above that of animals.

Jesus may not have, but David did mention that before he was knit in his mother's womb, God knew him. When do you think life begins? Does breath have to be drawn? John Holdren (Obama's science czar) stated that babies aren't really human until they are at least 2 years old. If that was the standard, could you imagine the number of babies lost? It is hard for me to imagine you being ok with the fact that your mother could have chosen to abort you somewhere along the line. The doctors almost forced my mother to abort me because they said that I was underdeveloped and that I would have physical problems all my life. These doctors who want to play God aren't always right because they PRACTICE medicine. I was born over 11 lbs, now I'm 6'5" and healthy as can be. Just because some doctors say that a baby isn't alive in the womb doesn't make it so. Murder is still murder, whether its because a mother doesn't want her baby in the womb or outside of the womb. If a pregnant woman plans on keeping her baby she is murdered, it is considered a double homicide. There is the recent case of the pregnant woman being murdered, and her baby cut out of her and stolen. If the baby wasn't alive, then how could it have survived? I'm a live-and-let-the-babies-live kinda guy.

John referred to himself as "the disciple that Jesus loved" on multiple occasions. This is in no was a reference to homosexuality. Males can have close friendships with each other without it getting sexual. God was very clear about homosexuality with it being on the same level of incest with regard to the Law given by Moses. Although forgivable (all sins are when one comes to Christ), the act is still detestable by God.

I have never advocated aborting viable near full term babies. But babies need to be wanted and loved or they turn out to be twisted adults. Besides there are far too many humans on the planet already and we are trashing the place. Once we are no longer planet bound, we can breed like rabbits again and fill up the moon, Mars, orbiting colonies and hollowed out asteroids. Then Ad Astra, to the stars!
But back to earth, in the first trimester it is debateable as to whether a fetus even is human, as ontology recapitulates physiognomy, at one point a fetus has gills and a tail and is for all practical purposes identical to a fish! If a girl has a fish in her womb, why shouldn't she flush it out? At any rate only the potential mother can know if she can carry a child to term, if she has the support system and physical and material resources to pull it off. Fathers are an important part of the process true, but fathers often walk, whereas until birthing the woman is committed to the project. She doesn't think she has it in her to make that committment and is forced to bear a child she doesn't want the error is triple.
1. An unwanted child is born. Statisticly such almost invariably become criminals and sociopaths. Bad, very Bad.
2. A woman has been treated like livestock, weakened, debilitated, and dehumanized for the sake of something she didn't want and didn't need.
3. A man has gotten away with planting his seed and not cultivating the field (so to speak). Men need to be responsible and if they plant it, they need to stick around and watch their get grow.
I have no objection to sex for pleasure, it is one of the things that binds the species together. But men have access to condoms or can choose to find pleasure in ways that don't include insemination of their partner. Otherwise the job ain't done till the result walks out the door at age 21. Carrying the species on takes thought and consideration or it should, even though usually it seems to happen accidentally.
It really is all about the future, Humanity is coming to a pinch point, as we have exhausted our frontiers and are beginning to squabble over the limited resources of the planet. Either we restrict and limit our growth or we colonize space for lebensraum. Once we have multiple homelands off planet so many issues no longer are relevant. Energy and raw materials are available for the taking! The Mormons and the Scientologists can have each their own orbiting cans! Megacorporations of the sort I despise in today's situation, are likely the exact sort of economic vehicle neccesary to exploit the asteroid belt for it's nearly limitless mineral wealth. Robotic zero gee factories pumping out cheap consumer goods from raw materials that never saw the earth!
But we can't get theyuh from heyuh as they say up'in Piscataquis County.

To several of you America Was and Still is a christian country but it is falling fast. And it is because of people like bella and Ken McCloud. Idiots who dont understand life. There are many principles that the country was founded on some of these are common to other religions such as Jewish and Islam and the reason for that is that they also believe in God. The do not believe everything but these are principles of people who believe in God. On the other issue one of the main reasons that America is falling from its christian principles is because of legalizing abortion. If God knows the human before it is even concieved then it is a human when it is concieved. If a baby is not human with a soul until part way through the pregnancy then what is it in the begining of the pregnancy??? just a blob that all of a sudden goes boom and becomes a human...I dont think so. And i am ok with abortions in animals. I live on a farm we have gave medicines to animals to cause them to hav abortions. This is because animals are exactly that animals. They are here to supply us with food and to keep the environment in check. They do not hav a soul. Sorry to tell you but your pet will not be in heaven with you.. if you idiots make it there. And im tired of arguing with thick skulled brainless fools who dont listen to a thing you say except what they think they might be able to twist around.

Does anyone have a good description of Schizophrenia?
Not exactly sure why I thought of that, I was just reading along, and the word kind of jumped out at me. Hmph, go figure.

Bella, keep your mouth clean woman. Good grief do you have no morals? No one else talks like that on here there is no need for you to. Find a better more educated way to vent your frustrations.

Now I get lambasted by a liberal for advocating for a minority portion of the population. That is a new one!
Some people are just plain retarded!
If you knew the proportion of my already small salary that goes to support local and national and international programs for the needy, you would eat your dirty words.
Abortion is just not the proper option for a mistake that was not the fault of the unborn. Adoption is a reasonable alternative. As for population control- I would be more encouraged by the philoshophy if the advocates of the practice volunteered to off themselves as a means to achieve the goal, but it seems they want somebody else to go first. Narcissism perhaps?

Fundamentalist extremism? What is the difference between that and liberal extremism? Could we try for the middle of the road?

The whole fundamentalist christian thing seems to maximise suffering Rather than abort unwanted children fundies would rather have them grow up suffering, inflicting more suffering on the humans around them until society has enough and executes them. This seems par for the course for a religion that represents itself with an executioners frame. Christianity condemns pleasure seeking and extolls suffering. Most "Saints" are on the list because of martyrdom rather than profound thought, again more suffering. The primary activity of many fundimentalists seems to be consigning other people to Hell (more suffering) and being annoying (still more suffering). Naturally I object strenuously when fundamentalists want to take my rights away and exercise hegemony over my flesh and blood (because obviously I ain't been suffering enough).I object to anybody who thinks their mission in life is to go about annoying people and trying to make them feel mizerable. Many of the fundies I have met seem to assume that I woiuld be soo much happiuer if I stopped thinking for myself and joined the choir in those cold hard pews. But I been there before, and I know precisely how much that sucked for me. He who is without sin, let him throw the first stone. And If I happen to need an abortion and fundie goons are in the way, I am just likely to start chucking stones. I don't share fundie beliefs and opinions, I see nothing rational or desirable in any system that marginalizes half the population. Both Islam and fundieism place a lot of emphasis on marginalizing women, so I find it completely understandable that you fundie men out their blogging might prefer a world where women are only property and not considered quite human, but that ain't the world we happen to live in. You can't give me rights, then take them away and not expect me to get really really pissy about it. Nor can you consider it just to do so.
Ranger 2 if you give money to charity you are just funding an industry that feeds like a LAMPREY off guilt ridden westerners and has little impact in the third world. Sure send off your dollars and salve that guilt. Orgs like the "christian childrens fund" prey upon the gullible. I have worked in fundraising and I know how much goes to "overhead" and how much actually feeds people (not much). If a child is sitting under a ragged tarp in the Sudan, belly distended with malnutrition, one meal of gruel scarcely helps a child likely already doomed and dead. It would have been better for the child in question if the Janjaweed militia hadn't killed her family, driven off the livestock and poisoned the wells. Sometime such luckless human flotsam gets taken and enslaved, then redeemed with ransom raised from christians, then reenslaved and ransomed again several times, becoming a cash cow for Islamic extremism. One bunch of fundies funds another. But for the girl in the camp there is onbly suffering and death, perhaps interspersed with a bit of exploitation here and there. And Ranger 2, this happens 100,000 fold and you can't do squat about it. If you are going to donate to feed the hungry donate food, lots of it, rather than fund the charitable industries that leech off the poor in the name of "Helping" them. If you want to feed the hungry, feed the hungry where you are at and don't pay somebody else to do it. Godless corporations have taken over charity just like they have taken over health care and industrialized food. The Head of the Pine Street Inn homeless shelter wears expensive suits and has a limo and a driver, par for the course these days. Read "Freakanomics" dude.

Bella

Your comments re: the fundraising and (some, not all) charities doing more to support extremism than one would like to admit are well founded. There are abuses in almost every sector. Look at the Humane Society U.S. and their pathetic commercials wanting your credit card number. Most of those goons could care less about domestic animals, just furthering their agendas of animal rights and anti-hunting. They are the next thing to domestic terrorists!

In my last paraph I did not intend to imply that I am or could ever be a father, I meant only to suggest that I can understand how a muy macho studmuffin might be justly proud of his way with the Laydeeze. Beachmasters and Silverbacks should be proud. I ain't immune to biology myself, it's just that I am happily married to my very own bear.

“I am only one, but I am one. I can't do everything, but I can do something. The something I ought to do, I can do. And by the grace of God, I will.” ~ Edward Everett Hale

My entire point was related to the futility of funding organizations that parasitize the needy to batten themselves on the guilt of the fortunate. If you actually get out there and do things good for you. It is what we do that counts. However only give what you can spare. It makes no sense to give money if you ain't got none anyway, especially when your donations inevitably go to individuals with far better tailors than you.
If Somebody wants to alleviate suffering in this country, one could do no better than vigorously support universal health care for all. Then not only would poor sick people get balm for their woes, but bankruptcies forced by medically induced destitution would cease, allowing more people to stay in the homes they love.
So Ranger 2 how many hungry people who aren't members of your family will share your table on Thanksgiving? We have a household tradition of "Orphan Thanksgiving" where we invite those we know who have no family to join us at our table. What simple act of love and charity did you Do this week? Or did you just throw money at someone to salve that sense of guilt that all Christians are innoculated with? Most self proclaimed christians I know really worship money anyway and actually couldn't give a damn about their fellow men, unless it happens to be good politics. For instance, after breaking up dozens of manufacturing operations, laying off their workers and shipping the machinery overseas to be set up elsewhere, could Willard (Mitt) Romney ever donate enough money to charity to make up for all the people he impoverished and the towns whose economies he destroyed to make a buck for himself?
So I am all about rolling up the sleeves, the unborn are just that, UNBORN, and what hasn't yet been born cannot die. There is no birth without death and no death without birth. The gruesomeness is in your mind, we both hunt and kill living things to eat them, why should one bit of gristle be more gruesome than another. Guys like you have really poor boundaries, I guess.
Women had the choice to abort even in Einstein's time and long before. I know herbs that will induce a miscarriage, they have been known since Cro Magnon went north. Einstein, Mother Teresa and Newton were wanted, therefore they were born to loving mothers who transmitted love with genes and were not mere "host bodies" for the seed of men. Blame people like me for whatever specious thing you like, just don't claim it to be "reason" or "reality". I don't think you have a clue, you drank the cool aide years ago and you claim freedom is tyranny and waste to be conservation.

I'll give you that shane.

OK...late comment; I'm with shane...GUNS ARE COOL!
End of comment

I too am with Shane and Borditella. Guns are cool. I like guns. Maybe I might shoot my guns off later.

As far as America being "christian", the problem is, which christian.
The Mormons would really really like it to be them, the Catholics will object and cin claim it is theirs and so on. The Christians themselves don't agree on everything, What you want the Copts version? How about the Anabaptists? The Amish?
You unschooled knowit alls apparently weren't taught that we have been here before and it didn't work. You even had Northern Ireland to remind you what Christians can do to one another in the name of Jesus Christ. But you want to inflict that on the rest of us. You are nuts! Perhaps schizophrenic, certainly delusionary just to think your fellow citizens would approve of a return to such violence and chaos as putting evangelical madmen like Fred Phelps in charge of anything at all. He'd be worse than the Ayatullah! No, anybody who wants to live under religious dictatorship of any kind can take his act else where, we bin there before (and it saucked, it really really soerked very bad) read the history again, read about men like Rodger Williams and Cotton Mather and you might change your mind about the benifice of christian hegemony.

Not to be sexist I forgot Goddesses as well.

Highlander complex (Monotheists) ... Hmmm I did mention the greeks, romans, hindu, mayan, aztec, native american tribes, and to add to african tribes, pagans and many other cultures with beliefs in Gods & Goddesses.

As a SERVICE member Westboro baptist church is not true followers of the teachings og the words written in red! And they disgust me.

As mentioned before Christians are not trying to subjegate and force their will/beliefs on anyone. The Islamic Extremist The guys that require women to wear veils and cover every inch of skin from head to toe. The guys as forementioned belkive that if they cannot convert you they need to erradicate you.
See prior post by me as to their other beliefs and the Shariya law.
There is no misinterpretation or misunderstanding or hidden agenda in their words.

I agree with religiuos freedom and intolerance toward religions, religious people or non religious people is wrong and detrimental to any society.

I'm not sexist.. I'm a realist... I told you my findings / feelings of the Bible that is written by and interpretted by MAN.

You are free to believe what you want to believe because of Service members like myself and the MEN that created this country with the words inscribed " In God We Trust"

But once again this nation is the most religiuosly tolerant and non subjective nation in the world. No one has forced you to convert, torued you for your beliefs, taken away you home, land or family because of your beliefs and if you feel that religious views are being forced upon you than by all means give up your guns, rights to own property m right to wear what you want in public and move to the middle east. But if that is too far fetched and unreasonable move to mexico, canada, peru, the UK, btw the UK is very intollerant of private citizens owning firearms.

Well fortunately for me I guess that I don't preach peace or try to force my beliefs upon you or anyone else. I do however feel intolerance no matter the reason is unjustified. I also feel there are 2 sides to every story and the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Bella the only one trying to push their views on anyone with vigor is you: Here are other cultures views on both Homosexuality and Abortion. Take a look and see for yourself. A mind is only as open as the person willing to use it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_homosexuality

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_homosexuality#Islam

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_abortion#Buddhism

I'm done with discussing this with you because you truly show your ignorance and closed mindedness with your comments.

Clay I agree whole hardettly wow Australia isn't the only country that feels that way Switzerland is taking it's own stand on the Muslim growth within their borders.

By the way in this Religiously Tolerant and Freedom to be yourself Nation they do not put people to death for adultery, homosexuality, abortions or committing abortions,rapist, hell we barely use capital punishment anymore on murderers.

Just because it isn't recognized in a matrimonial ceremony or religion Gays are still productive and noticed members of society.

Didn't you read anything I wrote 86er? I have posited many times that there is little difference between a Westboro Baptist and a Wahabi! The only places you'll find "church police" (aside from very old Saturday night live) are in Saudi or in Salt Lake City!
And if you think merely "not killing" abortionists, gays or others you dislike constitutes "tolerance" you have a long way to go!
To be fair, there are a few groups out there that merit my especial rantulations- I will freely admit I hate the mormons with a passion, but I ain't gonna go killing any of em, even if they deserve it. If the (expletive deleted) Danites rise then I'll greet 'em with hot lead and steel, but I ain't heard about any (expletive deleted) Danites recently and I don't plan to go anywhere near Utah either. Been there and the mormons are welcome to it. While I might have chuckled when the mormon stake center in Cambridge burned to the ground, I certainly didn't light the match! My emotions were perhaps related to all the boring annoying wasted hours spent in that dang barn in my misspent youth. Kinda like a kid hearing the reform school burned..
I have great respect (I say Again) for folks who follow nonjudgemental, loving and thoughtful forms of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. It is possible, I have met a few people who epitomised the best of these monotheistic creeds, but I am neither. I have had my own visions and my own interactions with the Divine and I see no point in trying to convert anybody to my own personal faith as it is mine and personal to me and my own relationship with the Divine Will (however one might wish to term it).
Most people seem to wish to insulate and distance themselves from the ineffable and ultimately unfathomable essence of the Divine. People pay priests and ministers to act as intermediaries between god and themselves and join religions to help organize and understand the experience of the Divine in a comfortable social context that often becomes a mechanism for social control. But I digress into Sociology, frankly, I think people need to do as Native Americans do and vision quest. Go meet God for yourself, He/She is waiting! Once you have met God/dess you never need an intermediary again, as you now know the Way to go yourself. And once you have done this, you will never fear death again. There are many pathways, the trail, (while scary) is well marked.
I am a practical girl, I do whatever I can for myself and my loved ones. If it don't work and gives no benefit, I drop it. Legislating "morality" is one of those things that don't work and gives no benefit (except perhaps to a few invested in the "ism" to be enshrined in law). The Volsted Act didn't work (and created the mafia!) the War on Drugs don't work (and created the Crips and the Latin Kings). It is intolerance itself that needs outlawing! Federal Civil rights legislation (and LBJ) crushed the KKK.
Diversity is strength when you have unity. E Pluribus Unum is on the Dollar, Out of many, One.

rabbitpolice88 i'd give you +10 if i could

Are you two..?Its OK where not here to judge.

I hear you and agree with you, there are several people on this site that fit that description.

This website is not and never has been a vehicle for your heretical brand of evangelism. You see any Hari Krishna's prosletizing here? How about Scientologists. The only fanatics who tend to post here condemning others are the PETA twits and Christian Fundies. While I occasionally enjoy pulling the chains of would be Savonarolas (look it up Bozo's) I have never suggested I wanted to impose my agenda on others, I just don't want your agenda's put on me! But if you get preachy on me I'll get preachy right back, trained to give sermons since I was 6 and I hardly ever get the chance to exercise that particular muscle.
I read history, I love history, and there is nothing truer than the cold fact that a culture that doesn't remember it's past is doomed to repeat it. You fundies want a theocracy (run by your boys of course) go to Pakistan, we tried that here before and it didn't work. Anyway God(dess) is faar too big for your tiny minds and wouln't co-operate with your desire for hegemony. Another "prophet" would rise up after you were comfortably in power and diss you! Then whatever stand ins for the peasants with pitchforks and torches will come and throw you out in turn. Happens again and again and again, with the names changed to protect the guilty. It would be funny if so many people didn't get killed every time it happens--when history repeats itself yet again.

America, Canada , all Europe .....need a President like this

Prime Minister John Howard Australia:

Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia , as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks.

Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation's mosques.
Quote: 'IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali , we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians'.

'This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom'. 'We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society . Learn the language!'

'Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.'

'We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.'

'This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom,

'THE RIGHT TO LEAVE'.'

'If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted.'

Maybe if we circulate this amongst ourselves, American citizens will find the backbone to start speaking

“How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!”
-Samuel Adams (1722-1803), letter to John Pitts, January 21, 1776

“The simple fact is that when I took up my little sling and aimed at Communism, I also hit something else. What I hit was the forces of that great socialist revolution, which, in the name of liberalism, spasmodically, incompletely, somewhat formlessly, but always in the same direction, has been inching its ice cap over the nation for two decades. This is not a charge. My opinion of that revolution is not at issue. It is a statement of fact that need startle no one who has voted for that revolution in whole or in part, and, consciously or unconsciously, a majority of the nation has so voted for years. It was the forces of that revolution that I struck at the point of its struggle for power.... No one could have been more dismayed than I at what I had hit, for though I knew it existed, I still had no adequate idea of its extent, the depth of its penetration or the fierce vindictiveness of its revolutionary temper, which is a reflex of its struggle to keep and advance its political power.”
-Whittaker Chambers (born Vivian Jay Chambers in 1901, Soviet agent turned right wing Christian activist, and exposer of Soviet agent, trusted aide to FDR, and UN co-architect, Alger Hiss), 1952

Thank you jwallen, you take the words from my mouth.
Some of the fundies have accused me of "forcing" "my" agenda on them. I wish to remind everyone that my stance on Abortion Rights for women is in accord with established law. By advocating the repeal of Roe vs. Wade the fundies are attempting to put their agenda on me and millions of other women. I don't need one, I raised one kid (that was enough) and I got meself spayed. But I will forever defend my sisters rights and soverenty over their own bodies even if I never needed a D&C and never plan to get one. But don't blame the gynecologists, they usually don't do anything to a girl she doesn't authorize. Similarly I would defend the fundies rights to be fundies, as long as they don't tresspass on the rights of others (which seems to be high on their priorities). I don't like Mormons or Scientologists myself, but other than removing their "religious" tax exemptions, I wouldn't harrass them unless they do socially objectional things. Religious freedom is religious freedom. Religious freedom does not mean that one faith has the right to impose it's agenda on other faiths or harrass nonbelievers. It means live and let live for everybody. Fundies, especially the Westboro Baptist types, often don't follow this, but always remember, what you send out comes back to you. As you give, so shall you receive. What do You want? Could you stand it being mirrored back at you? Oh Well, Duck and Cover!

BELLA FIRST OF ALL, Abortion Rights for women is in accord with established law, then start with yourself!

The Woman was misled and goated into doing something she now says was wrong.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

This was in response for the original 13 States where Congress could not make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Key word, CONGRESS!

This does not refer to the State or local Government but to Congress!!

Once again,

“How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!”
-Samuel Adams (1722-1803), letter to John Pitts, January 21, 1776

How did the phrase Church a and state get started, it started with this letter.

This missive was written in the wake of the bitter presidential contest of 1800. Candidate Jefferson’s religion, or the alleged lack thereof, was a critical issue in the campaign.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

Bella, if your house burns down and you loose everything you own, I would still give you the shirt off my back <><

Bella, ken, jwallin.. Thank GOD (no pun intended) for the voice of reason! there are way too many folks out there who would mind our buisiness, usually 'cause they don't have enough of their own. I think personal life choices are should be just that. No one else has to live with them. As for "god" well, we all have to die to really find out which of us is right!

I know exactly what I believe, I just don't see any reason to inflict it on others, it's personal. Rabbitpolice seems to have this notion that anybody who doesn't believe as he believes is a nonbeliever, but he believes a lot of outright lies soo...
All Hail the Next one True Prophet... Rabbitpolice, since God Only Talks to Rabbitpolice we should all bother him incessantly for advice on even the most personal aspects of our lives. We must all convert to Rabbitpoliceianity so he can choose his 88 syncopants to impose His Will!
Imagine crowds of hundreds of devotees all chanting "Rabbitpolice" "Rabbitpolice" "Rabbitpolice"!
What color are your prophetly robes gonna be oh Rabbity one? How soon are you gonna get that rewritten dictionary done so all us confused individuals can understand what the fudge you are actually saying....

rabbitpolice88 and Bella

Albert Einstein said it best,

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."

rabbitpolice88

I'm afraid you’re right

I truly Bella is a wonderful person, something, somewhere, someplace, something went astray.

One not knowing yet alone not understanding history and how it has come to play with society often finds them on the wrong side.

Why has religion been so bad? Some centuries ago, the Bible was only in Latin and those who knew Latin where Priests. Rich Politicians would buy a Church. You buy a Church, thereby you own the People! Biblical passages were misconstrued and manipulated making the Church a powerful weapon against individuals and groups. Then came a Priest who realized what the Church was doing and set out to correct it. He started to publish the Bible in the local language for all to read and to understand. This created a great uprising within the Church. Groups and individuals realizing that the Church was a political arm of politics rebelled. One who rebelled was the Pilgrims who set forth to find a new place to live.

Final thought,

Of all the greatest minds ever known even Albert Einstein believed in God, a Supreme Being!

Gotta run, but I’m sure you have enough information to go on!

Clay, you know we have actually agreed on some things in the past, like gawd-awful pink synthetic stocks on otherwise nice guns.
I'm glad you have some idea who Tyndale and Wycliffe were and why they died so you could read your Bible in English. It is likely you and I may both enjoy the same King James Version of the Bible Wycliffe burned for.
But you have to go further back to when the Bible was assembled.
The word "bible" itself means " a collection of books" and it was Constantine the Byzantine Emperor who decided what books made it in and what didn't at the council of Nicea. It was there that it was decided to exclude books like "the Book of Mary" and "the Book of Jubilees" from the final product and include things like Revelation and the "epistles" of Paul. However now we have rediscovered the original texts for many of these works and we can decide for ourselves as to whether these texts are relevant or not. We don't have to stick with Imperator Constantine's pick, and there is no reason that we should. After all Constantine was a politician and wanted a unified christianity he could impose as a state religion. It wasn't Catholics, Protestants, and Orthadox then it was Orthadoxy, Gnostics, Manicheans and Arianists back then. Only the Orthadox and a few Manicheans still exist of these early, (although I forgot to mention the Coptic Christians in Egypt that still carry on today). Then there is Africa, Ethiopian Christians have an incredibly long history and actually claim to have custody of the Ark of the Covenant! (Indiana Jones was fiction). So...If one wanted to get the officially God Sanctioned version of Christianity one might think the mandate of heaven would remain with those who keep the Ark of the Covenant, but hey Oral Roberts never went to Ethiopia that I know of. Perhaps the Rastafarians are actually on to something when they claim Hailie Selassi (Lion of Judah, Emperor of Ethiopia) was the true Messiah. But then the Emperor met the Marxists and the Emperor went down.
But now we all have been enlightened by the True Son of God Rabbitpolice who will now bestow his holy benison upon the faithful.
Save us from the perils of Liberalism Oh Holy Rabbityone!

PS

I HATE TYPING ON LAP TOP!

You know, Clay, aside from a few political and spiritual disagreements, we are more similar than you think. We too take in refugees and have taken in displaced person so they can get their feet numerous times. I always try to help individuals directly, rather than filter it through "charitable" organizations. I have given away two vehicles to associates who needed them.
The whole notion of protestantism was originally about making the sacred texts available to the common man, and the common man making up their own mind about whatever was read. Getting in Dogmatic lockstep is what controlling forces always do, when they want to divide people up and obscure common goals and ideals. Nobody ever got away with accusing this lady of such a thing, I have always danced to the beat of my own drum. I'm glad that you do so as well.
(and I also have some issues with laptop keyboards too.)

That is good because you made yourself look and sound like a fool.

Bella I checked your worship of ZARDOZ and I got to say, is that what you really get off on!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zardoz

Bella, Clay, et al. I wished you all lived closer so I could buy you a cup of coffee and chat. I imagine the founding fathers sitting around inns and pubs lifting a pint and having spirited discussions on subjects like this.
Above you mention Hailie Selassi. I don’t believe any of the following but enough do to give it some validity when used with the same filters that the Christian right use to base their beliefs.
Hailie Selassi was born Tafari Makonnen and promoted to Ras after Iyasu V was deposed on the grounds of his conversion to Islam. He is worshipped as God incarnate among followers of the Rastafari movement which emerged in Jamaica during the 1930s. His traditional lineage from Solomon and Sheba, were perceived by Rastafarians as confirmation of the return of the Messiah in the prophetic Book of Revelation in the New Testament: King of Kings, Lord of Lords, Conquering Lion of the Tribe of Judah and Root of David. Rastafarians have faith in the incarnate divinity of Haile Selassie. When he visited Jamaica in 1966, thousands of Rastafari from all over Jamaica descended on the Airport in Kingston, having heard that the man whom they considered to be their Messiah was coming to visit them. Marijuana was openly smoked, causing "a haze of ganja" (literally and figuratively) to drift through the air. This day is still commemorated by Rastafarians as Grounation (a sense of well being) Day, the anniversary of which is celebrated as the second holiest holiday after 2 November, the Emperor's Coronation Day. He was ousted by the “godless” socialists and was allowed to die due to neglect after a botched prostate surgery. Some of the Rastafarians believe that he did not die and will return to lead them. They are living in Ethiopia awaiting his return. The locals think they are idiots. Go figure!

Now we find that the Ark of the Covenant resides in an Ethiopian Coptic Church, where it has been zealously guarded for 500 years or more. They still guard it today, with AK's. Perhaps the Rasta's aren't that far off the mark....Obviously then, if you are going with an Old Testiment variation on Christianity, there can really be only one, The Coptic Church in Ethiopia! They never had the Petrine issue, The Council of Nicea didn't touch 'em (it was out of Constantine's reach), neither the Diet of Wurms nor the Inquisition came anywhere near Ethiopia. The whole Reformation is irrelevant to a Copt. I've met a couple of Coptic Christians and they were very spiritual individuals. I was intrigued to find "the Book of Jubilees" is in the Coptic New Testiment (Constantine had it redacted). Apparently even the Socialists who kicked out The Lion of Judah, Emperor Selasse haven't dared mess with the Ark, and I wouldn't Think even Indiana Jones would want to mess with the crew who guard the church where it sits. In the photos I saw they looked armed to the teeth. But hey, logically speaking if you want to practice the oldest purest form of Christianity, I should think you should start learning Amharic. The Jewish/ Ethiopian connection is well documented, and after the Socialist Revolution there hundreds of Falashas, or Ethiopian Jews went to Israel (under the "right of return policy") and caused much consternation with the predominately Ashkenazi Jews of modern Israel. Also interesting was an entire tribe in Botswana discovered who insisted they were Jews, keeping Kosher, the whole bit. Genetic testing found the Cohenim gene in certain liniages proving that, yes indeed they were Jews, in Africa thousands of miles from where they might have been expected to be, but there they were.
Clay, as far as miracles go, I have appreciated my share and witnessed many special magical happenings. No faith has a monopoly on such, I am glad you were saved that day, some of us are fortunate enough to have backup on the other side. An old saying is that the secret of magic is religion and the secret of religion is magic. All you have to have to appreciate a miracle is a belief in the impossible, and I have witnessed many wonders indeed, which is perhaps why I believe the things I do. If two faiths from widely cultural derivations both have evidence of the verity of their belief systems with recorded miraculous happenings, then it is irrational to say one faith is genuine (because it is familiar) and another false because despite demonstration of equal wonders it is beyond one's cultural milleau.

Red Loincloths and Sashes for All the Boys! Free Guns and Giant Flying Stone Head Rides Yay Zardoz! Zardoz! Zardoz! Whohoo!
(unless you are on your way to Addis Abba already...)

Someone asked about this, the first verision was too long so here we are again. Original was very long from Wikipedia!
Schizophrenia

What is Schizophrenia?

Schizophrenia is a chronic, severe, and disabling brain disorder that affects about 1.1 percent of the U.S. population age 18 and older in a given year. People with schizophrenia sometimes hear voices others don’t hear, believe that others are broadcasting their thoughts to the world, or become convinced that others are plotting to harm them. These experiences can make them fearful and withdrawn and cause difficulties when they try to have relationships with others. More about Schizophrenia »
Signs & Symptoms

Symptoms usually develop in men in their late teens or early twenties and women in the twenties and thirties, but in rare cases, can appear in childhood. They can include hallucinations, delusions, disordered thinking, movement disorders, flat affect, social withdrawal, and cognitive deficits. More about Signs & Symptoms »
Treatment

This is a time of hope for people with schizophrenia. Although the causes of the disease have not yet been determined, current treatments can eliminate many of the symptoms and allow people with schizophrenia to live independent and fulfilling lives in the community. More about Treatment »

Sure Moishe, I'll do the monokini if you'll do the loincloth!LOL! Sean Connery will likely never live ZARDOZ down! Incomprehensible plot, Barbarella-like scenery the movie is a riot to watch just because of the surreal imagery and bizarre conceptualization (plus Sean in a red loincloth). Fun!
I have worked professionally providing services to schizophrenics, personally I'd much rather work assisting people who are merely schizophrenic than with people who have Borderline Personality Syndrome. Schizophrenics can loose hold of reality at times, but Borderline people are just nasty and selfish.
And (of course) preserve us all from Sociopaths!

Elphaba was just misunderstood...

I don't care how many people do not like what I am about to stay, I am going to stick up for my religion. Our nation was founded of Christian principles and Christianity was the only religion tolerated. Now we accept all religions, well we can let all religions practice their religion but we shouldn't accept them like it is right. Christianity is the only true religion. It is the only and true way. And if you are some other religion then I am sorry but God is in my life and I must share him with all.

"Jesus Christ"! The same today, tomorrow and forever! Reading that statement might have one meaning but if you were standing next to me and heard me say it you would get a whole different idea of what I meant.
Romans 14:1 "As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions".

A christian nation ....God is Not in the U.S. Constitution or Bill of Rights other than the date which was common in that era...the word creator appears but no name of this almighty god who they suposedly loved so much....if this country was founded on christian principles then christians must have loved slaves because they had so many,,,the christians must have been white supremisits because indians and blacks were considered lessor humans on the basis of race alone...christianity is and always has been a vile and dangerous religon,commiting some of the most vile atrocities known to man,,,hitlers killing of 6 million jews was nothing compared to the 26 million that christianity has killed with all their holy wars,crusades,inquisitions,trials ect ect....Christianity has always been a violent religon the same as the muslims,,,you only have to look at all the killing that their so-called all powerful god ordered them to do in the OT...seems an all powerful god need a bunch of men to go out and kill womnen,children and infants....and wipe out entire towns and tribes...god couldnt do it himself.....christians in this age still kill abortion doctors,bomb clinics and scream obsenities at the funerals of our dead soldiers,,they hate gays and anyone else that doesnt believe as they do,,they target young children for indoctrination into their vile cult worship..they love money and ask for it constantly to do gods work,,seems an all powerful god cant do his own work or even contribute some money falling from heaven...God cant even manage money hes all powerful yet he needs your money....Every time someone says to me "I'M A CHRISTIAN" I do not see a kind and loving person I just see a potential child molester who wants money,power and to deny me rights given to me by the government...Just look at the stupidity inherant in their numerous doctrines of different beliefs that vary from church to church...they cant agree on one thing so they have 5,000 denominations all screaming the the other 4999 denominations are in error,,just goes to show you how stupid people really are when it comes to mystical unproven beliefs.....just think in another 1000 years some dirt digger will find the complete works of george carlin and will get several people to believe in it and then the stupid gulible people of the future will begin to worship Ole George and the 7 holy words you cant say on TV....

oh thats typical...most fundie christians always saw that the catholics are a seperate religon all to themselves and they did all the killing,,,avoidance and finger pointing is a trait well taught to fundies from the very begining of their indoctrination...They refuse to face the cold hard facts that catholics were the first christians the first church,and like always numerous branches and off shoots came from that first cult...and those cults carried on the murder, destruction, and oppression as before.....the biggest question that stops any religion right in its tracks is
"Where is your god and why does he hide?"

A christian nation? not hardly.Hmmm where to start..well the basic principles that this country were founded on may have been based on the religous morals of the time,,but christians were not the first ones to say do not steal,do not kill,do not cheat on your spouse,ect ect.
Many other cultures and countries had the same basic moral principles before the invent of the christian religion...
I dont see how anyone can say this country is or was ever a christian nation,a truely christian nation would not have stood for the mass murder of millions of american indians at the hands of the government and local citizens,nor would a truely christian nation have impossed slavery,a truely christian nation would not have impossed voting and social restrictions on its fellow christians who happen to be Black...If you really think about it Claiming that this country is/was a christian nation implies that the vast majority of its citizens were christians and that the government was operated by elected christians,and that these vile actions against the indians,blacks,hispanics,and other minorities were ordered and condoned by that same christian nation..It implies that the laws that were passed that granted freedom to whites but not to blacks or other minorities were passed by a christian congress and christian law makers...it is basic common logic that if the USA was 90% christian in its beginning as many people say then all the attrocites that have occured were committed/condoned by a christian government,elected by the christian population.....
Since the first day the US government came into exsistence it has done both good and bad things,and it has changed over the decades as society has changed,Over the years it has become infested with more and more people only interested in how much money and power they can get and how many freedoms can they restrict or eliminate in order to fill their pockets even more and have more control over the population....are these people in government christians since this is a christian nation?
Perhaps they are!!!!!
Just take a look at christianity in this country right now and I dont mean the little churches down on the street corner with 100 members,runing a food pantry...I mean the big organized christians like the ones with those big giant mega-churches,the ones all over the TV,the big church universities and schools,ect ect...they have progressed the same way as the government has they are infested with poeple who only care in how much money they can get in their pockets and how much power they can have over the population,and how many freedoms they can restrict or eliminate that are given to the current population......
Christianity is the same as the government both have started out as a good idea and both did good and bad things,and both are in serious need of a re-evaluation to determine if their current policies/doctrines, Laws/biblical rules are beneficial to the current population......

Georgec88, I don't know where you get your information from but you are sorely misinformed. No Bible believing Bible teaching church believes that the pastors words are inspired by God. That is simply not true. The Bible is the word of God not what the pastor says.

We are a Nation of rel. freedom, believe what you want and keep your noise and the gov't out of what I want to believe AND keep your rel. out of my gov't.

"""I have no problem with letting other religions practice in America, my problem is pretending that all of the religions are correct and you can get to heaven any way you want. This point of view is wrong. God is the true and only way to get to heaven and Christianity is the only true religion.""""

actually you have no proof for any of your claims other than your belief in a book written and compiled by man..same as the rest of the religions of the world.....
your religion is no more important or less important than any other religion in the world..
Your god is no more real or unreal than the other 358,967 deities in human culture..
Your idea of heaven is no different than any other fabled afterlife in paradise..
The only ones that need to pronounce that christianity is the only right religion are the christians who follow it...not the rest of the world..and not all of America...
Christianity is always seeking to prove everyone else wrong even between their own denominations...
It seems like many of them have an obsesive paranoid disorder that everyone must be made to believe exactly how they believe,which of course has led to the creation of numerous denominations holding different beliefs based on a core example.
Why do so many of them seek validation by demanding that their religion be recognized as the only way?
Why does it bother so many christians when you tell them "NO I dont believe you"?
Why does it bother so many christians when someone says "there is no such thing as god"?
Why does everyone have to accept your religion????
Why does everyone have to recognize your religion as special??
Why do christians worry so much about what other people believe??

I dont care what people chose to believe,,,
I dont even care if people worship a golden pepsi can,and believe that when they die they will go up to pepsi heaven and spend eternity sipping pepsi and laying on a cloud...
as long as they dont tell me I have to believe it too....

When religion((any religion)) says that I MUST believe them and tries continuously to convert me to that religion and convince me that they hold the only truth, that is when the line gets crossed...and they get lumped right in there with jim jones, david koresh,heavens gate,The Solar Temple,and all the other lunitic cultists that would demand I acknowledge their goofy beliefs as truth.

You believe in jesus/god thats perfectly fine good for you,just dont tell me I have to acknowledge your beliefs as truth.....
Remember I am not asking you to worship my golden can of pepsi, because you will not believe it to be the truth so have the same respect for other people who say "I dont believe you or your god"

Ranger!, Since you asked for a definition of it here it is.

Enjoy,Enjoy as Harry Golden wrote once.
I did delet over 200 Suggested books on the subject.

Schizophrenia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to:navigation, search
For other uses, see Schizophrenia (disambiguation).
This article is semi-protected.
Schizophrenia
Classification and external resources

Schizophrenia (pronounced /ˌskɪtsɵˈfrɛniə/ or /ˌskɪtsɵˈfriːniə/) is a mental disorder characterized by abnormalities in the perception or expression of reality. It most commonly manifests as auditory hallucinations, paranoid or bizarre delusions, or disorganized speech and thinking with significant social or occupational dysfunction. Onset of symptoms typically occurs in young adulthood,[1] with around 0.4–0.6%[2][3] of the population affected. Diagnosis is based on the patient's self-reported experiences and observed behavior. No laboratory test for schizophrenia currently exists.[4]

Studies suggest that genetics, early environment, neurobiology, psychological and social processes are important contributory factors; some recreational and prescription drugs appear to cause or worsen symptoms. Current psychiatric research is focused on the role of neurobiology, but no single organic cause has been found. As a result of the many possible combinations of symptoms, there is debate about whether the diagnosis represents a single disorder or a number of discrete syndromes. Despite the etymology of the term from the Greek roots skhizein (σχίζειν, "to split") and phrēn, phren- (φρήν, φρεν-; "mind"), schizophrenia does not imply a "split mind" and it is not the same as dissociative identity disorder (previously known as multiple personality disorder or split personality), a condition with which it is often confused in public perception.[5]

Increased dopamine activity in the mesolimbic pathway of the brain is consistently found in schizophrenic individuals. The mainstay of treatment is antipsychotic medication; this type of drug primarily works by suppressing dopamine activity. Dosages of antipsychotics are generally lower than in the early decades of their use. Psychotherapy, and vocational and social rehabilitation are also important. In more serious cases—where there is risk to self and others—involuntary hospitalization may be necessary, although hospital stays are less frequent and for shorter periods than they were in previous times.[6]

The disorder is thought to mainly affect cognition, but it also usually contributes to chronic problems with behavior and emotion. People with schizophrenia are likely to have additional (comorbid) conditions, including major depression and anxiety disorders;[7] the lifetime occurrence of substance abuse is around 40%. Social problems, such as long-term unemployment, poverty and homelessness, are common. Furthermore, the average life expectancy of people with the disorder is 10 to 12 years less than those without, due to increased physical health problems and a higher suicide rate ( about 5% ).[8][9]
Contents
[hide]

* 1 Signs and symptoms
o 1.1 Schneiderian classification
o 1.2 Positive and negative symptoms
* 2 Diagnosis
o 2.1 Standardized criteria
o 2.2 Confusion with other conditions
o 2.3 Subtypes
o 2.4 Controversies and research directions
* 3 Causes
o 3.1 Genetic
o 3.2 Prenatal
o 3.3 Social
o 3.4 Induced Thoughts
o 3.5 Substance Abuse
* 4 Mechanisms
o 4.1 Psychological
o 4.2 Neural
* 5 Screening and prevention
* 6 Management
o 6.1 Medication
o 6.2 Psychological and social interventions
o 6.3 Other
* 7 Prognosis
o 7.1 Course
o 7.2 Defining recovery
o 7.3 Predictors
o 7.4 Mortality
o 7.5 Violence
* 8 Epidemiology
* 9 History
* 10 Society and culture
o 10.1 Stigma
o 10.2 Iconic cultural depictions
* 11 See also
* 12 References
* 13 Further reading
* 14 External links

Signs and symptoms

Depending on the individual, a person diagnosed with schizophrenia may experience hallucinations (most commonly hearing voices), delusions (often bizarre or persecutory in nature), and disorganized thinking and speech. The latter may range from loss of train of thought, to sentences only loosely connected in meaning, to incoherence known as word salad in severe cases. There is often an observable pattern of emotional difficulty, for example lack of responsiveness or motivation. Impairment in social cognition is associated with schizophrenia, as are symptoms of paranoia, and social isolation commonly occurs. In one uncommon subtype, the person may be largely mute, remain motionless in bizarre postures, or exhibit purposeless agitation; these are signs of catatonia.

Late adolescence and early adulthood are peak years for the onset of schizophrenia. In 40% of men and 23% of women diagnosed with schizophrenia, the condition arose before the age of 19.[10] These are critical periods in a young adult's social and vocational development. To minimize the developmental disruption associated with schizophrenia, much work has recently been done to identify and treat the prodromal (pre-onset) phase of the illness, which has been detected up to 30 months before the onset of symptoms, but may be present longer.[11] Those who go on to develop schizophrenia may experience the non-specific symptoms of social withdrawal, irritability and dysphoria in the prodromal period,[12] and transient or self-limiting psychotic symptoms in the prodromal phase before psychosis becomes apparent.[13]
Schneiderian classification
The term Schizophrenia was coined by Eugen Bleuler

The psychiatrist Kurt Schneider (1887–1967) listed the forms of psychotic symptoms that he thought distinguished schizophrenia from other psychotic disorders. These are called first-rank symptoms or Schneider's first-rank symptoms, and they include delusions of being controlled by an external force; the belief that thoughts are being inserted into or withdrawn from one's conscious mind; the belief that one's thoughts are being broadcast to other people; and hearing hallucinatory voices that comment on one's thoughts or actions or that have a conversation with other hallucinated voices.[14] Although they have significantly contributed to the current diagnostic criteria, the specificity of first-rank symptoms has been questioned. A review of the diagnostic studies conducted between 1970 and 2005 found that these studies allow neither a reconfirmation nor a rejection of Schneider's claims, and suggested that first-rank symptoms be de-emphasized in future revisions of diagnostic systems.[15]
Positive and negative symptoms

Schizophrenia is often described in terms of positive and negative (or deficit) symptoms.[16] The term positive symptoms refers to symptoms that most individuals do not normally experience but are present in schizophrenia. They include delusions, auditory hallucinations, and thought disorder, and are typically regarded as manifestations of psychosis. Negative symptoms are things that are not present in schizophrenic persons but are normally found in healthy persons, that is, symptoms that reflect the loss or absence of normal traits or abilities. Common negative symptoms include flat or blunted affect and emotion, poverty of speech (alogia), inability to experience pleasure (anhedonia), lack of desire to form relationships (asociality), and lack of motivation (avolition). Research suggests that negative symptoms contribute more to poor quality of life, functional disability, and the burden on others than do positive symptoms.[17]

A third symptom grouping, the disorganization syndrome, is sometimes described, and includes chaotic speech, thought, and behavior. There is evidence for a number of other symptom classifications.[18]
Diagnosis

Schizophrenia is diagnosed on the basis of symptom profiles. Neural correlates do not provide sufficiently useful criteria.[19] Diagnosis is based on the self-reported experiences of the person, and abnormalities in behavior reported by family members, friends or co-workers, followed by a clinical assessment by a psychiatrist, social worker, clinical psychologist or other mental health professional. Psychiatric assessment includes a psychiatric history and some form of mental status examination.[citation needed]
Standardized criteria

The most widely used standardized criteria for diagnosing schizophrenia come from the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, version DSM-IV-TR, and the World Health Organization's International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, the ICD-10. The latter criteria are typically used in European countries, while the DSM criteria are used in the United States and the rest of the world, as well as prevailing in research studies. The ICD-10 criteria put more emphasis on Schneiderian first-rank symptoms, although, in practice, agreement between the two systems is high.[20]

According to the revised fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR), to be diagnosed with schizophrenia, three diagnostic criteria must be met:[4]

1. Characteristic symptoms: Two or more of the following, each present for much of the time during a one-month period (or less, if symptoms remitted with treatment).
* Delusions
* Hallucinations
* Disorganized speech, which is a manifestation of formal thought disorder
* Grossly disorganized behavior (e.g. dressing inappropriately, crying frequently) or catatonic behavior
* Negative symptoms: Blunted affect (lack or decline in emotional response), alogia (lack or decline in speech), or avolition (lack or decline in motivation)

If the delusions are judged to be bizarre, or hallucinations consist of hearing one voice participating in a running commentary of the patient's actions or of hearing two or more voices conversing with each other, only that symptom is required above. The speech disorganization criterion is only met if it is severe enough to substantially impair communication.

2. Social/occupational dysfunction: For a significant portion of the time since the onset of the disturbance, one or more major areas of functioning such as work, interpersonal relations, or self-care, are markedly below the level achieved prior to the onset.
3. Duration: Continuous signs of the disturbance persist for at least six months. This six-month period must include at least one month of symptoms (or less, if symptoms remitted with treatment).

If signs of disturbance are present for more than a month but less than six months, the diagnosis of schizophreniform disorder is applied.[4] Psychotic symptoms lasting less than a month may be diagnosed as brief psychotic disorder, and various conditions may be classed as psychotic disorder not otherwise specified. Schizophrenia cannot be diagnosed if symptoms of mood disorder are substantially present (although schizoaffective disorder could be diagnosed), or if symptoms of pervasive developmental disorder are present unless prominent delusions or hallucinations are also present, or if the symptoms are the direct physiological result of a general medical condition or a substance, such as abuse of a drug or medication.
Confusion with other conditions

There is a spectrum of disorders that share similarities with schizophrenia but which are diagnosed as separate conditions, including schizophreniform disorder, schizoaffective disorder, schizoid personality disorder and schizotypal personality disorder (related to the concept of schizotypy). Paranoid personality disorder is also generally considered to be related.[21]

Psychotic symptoms may be present in several other mental disorders, including bipolar disorder,[22] borderline personality disorder,[23], drug intoxication and drug-induced psychosis. Delusions ("non-bizarre") are also present in delusional disorder, and social withdrawal in social anxiety disorder or avoidant personality disorder. Schizophrenia is complicated with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) considerably more often than could be explained by pure chance, although it can be difficult to distinguish compulsions that represent OCD from the delusions of schizophrenia.[24]

A more general medical and neurological examination may be needed to rule out medical illnesses which may rarely produce psychotic schizophrenia-like symptoms,[4] such as metabolic disturbance, systemic infection, syphilis, HIV infection, epilepsy, and brain lesions. It may be necessary to rule out a delirium, which can be distinguished by visual hallucinations, acute onset and fluctuating level of consciousness, and indicates an underlying medical illness. Investigations are not generally repeated for relapse unless there is a specific medical indication or possible adverse effects from antipsychotic medication.

"Schizophrenia" does not mean dissociative identity disorder—formerly and still widely known as "multiple personalities"—despite the etymology of the word (Greek σχίζω = "I split").
Subtypes

The DSM-IV-TR contains five sub-classifications of schizophrenia (the DSM-5 developers are planning to drop them[25]):

* Paranoid type: Where delusions and hallucinations are present but thought disorder, disorganized behavior, and affective flattening are absent. (DSM code 295.3/ICD code F20.0)
* Disorganized type: Named hebephrenic schizophrenia in the ICD. Where thought disorder and flat affect are present together. (DSM code 295.1/ICD code F20.1)
* Catatonic type: The subject may be almost immobile or exhibit agitated, purposeless movement. Symptoms can include catatonic stupor and waxy flexibility. (DSM code 295.2/ICD code F20.2)
* Undifferentiated type: Psychotic symptoms are present but the criteria for paranoid, disorganized, or catatonic types have not been met. (DSM code 295.9/ICD code F20.3)
* Residual type: Where positive symptoms are present at a low intensity only. (DSM code 295.6/ICD code F20.5)

The ICD-10 defines two additional subtypes.

* Post-schizophrenic depression: A depressive episode arising in the aftermath of a schizophrenic illness where some low-level schizophrenic symptoms may still be present. (ICD code F20.4)
* Simple schizophrenia: Insidious and progressive development of prominent negative symptoms with no history of psychotic episodes. (ICD code F20.6)

Controversies and research directions

The scientific validity of schizophrenia, and its defining symptoms such as delusions and hallucinations, have been criticised.[26][27] In 2006, a group of consumers and mental health professionals from the UK, under the banner of Campaign for Abolition of the Schizophrenia Label, argued for a rejection of the diagnosis of schizophrenia based on its heterogeneity and associated stigma, and called for the adoption of a biopsychosocial model. Other UK psychiatrists opposed the move arguing that the term schizophrenia is a useful, even if provisional concept.[28][29]

Similarly, there is an argument that the underlying issues would be better addressed as a spectrum of conditions[30] or as individual dimensions along which everyone varies rather than by a diagnostic category based on an arbitrary cut-off between normal and ill.[31] This approach appears consistent with research on schizotypy, and with a relatively high prevalence of psychotic experiences, mostly non-distressing delusional beliefs, among the general public.[32][33][34] In concordance with this observation, psychologist Edgar Jones, and psychiatrists Tony David and Nassir Ghaemi, surveying the existing literature on delusions, pointed out that the consistency and completeness of the definition of delusion have been found wanting by many; delusions are neither necessarily fixed, nor false, nor involve the presence of incontrovertible evidence.[35][36][37]

Nancy Andreasen, a leading figure in schizophrenia research, has criticized the current DSM-IV and ICD-10 criteria for sacrificing diagnostic validity for the sake of artificially improving reliability. She argues that overemphasis on psychosis in the diagnostic criteria, while improving diagnostic reliability, ignores more fundamental cognitive impairments that are harder to assess due to large variations in presentation.[38][39] This view is supported by other psychiatrists.[40] In the same vein, Ming Tsuang and colleagues argue that psychotic symptoms may be a common end-state in a variety of disorders, including schizophrenia, rather than a reflection of the specific etiology of schizophrenia, and warn that there is little basis for regarding DSM’s operational definition as the "true" construct of schizophrenia.[30] Neuropsychologist Michael Foster Green went further in suggesting the presence of specific neurocognitive deficits may be used to construct phenotypes that are alternatives to those that are purely symptom-based. These deficits take the form of a reduction or impairment in basic psychological functions such as memory, attention, executive function and problem solving.[41][42]

The exclusion of affective components from the criteria for schizophrenia, despite their ubiquity in clinical settings, has also caused contention. This exclusion in the DSM has resulted in a "rather convoluted" separate disorder—schizoaffective disorder.[40] Citing poor interrater reliability, some psychiatrists have totally contested the concept of schizoaffective disorder as a separate entity.[43][44] The categorical distinction between mood disorders and schizophrenia, known as the Kraepelinian dichotomy, has also been challenged by data from genetic epidemiology.[45]

An approach broadly known as the anti-psychiatry movement, most active in the 1960s, opposes the orthodox medical view of schizophrenia as an illness.[46][page needed] Psychiatrist Thomas Szasz argues that psychiatric patients are individuals with unconventional thoughts and behavior that society diagnoses as a method of social control, and therefore the diagnosis of "schizophrenia" is merely a form of social construction.[47] The Hearing Voices Movement argues that many people diagnosed as psychotic need their experiences to be accepted and valued rather than medicalized.
Causes
Main article: Causes of schizophrenia
Data from a PET study[48] suggests that the less the frontal lobes are activated (red) during a working memory task, the greater the increase in abnormal dopamine activity in the striatum (green), thought to be related to the neurocognitive deficits in schizophrenia.

While the reliability of the diagnosis introduces difficulties in measuring the relative effect of genes and environment (for example, symptoms overlap to some extent with severe bipolar disorder or major depression), evidence suggests that genetic and environmental factors can act in combination to result in schizophrenia.[49] Evidence suggests that the diagnosis of schizophrenia has a significant heritable component but that onset is significantly influenced by environmental factors or stressors.[50] The idea of an inherent vulnerability (or diathesis) in some people, which can be unmasked by biological, psychological or environmental stressors, is known as the stress-diathesis model.[51] An alternative idea that biological, psychological and social factors are all important is known as the "biopsychosocial" model.
Genetic

Twin studies and adoption studies have suggested a high level of heritability (the proportion of variation between individuals in a population that is influenced by genetic factors).[52] It has been suggested that schizophrenia is a condition of complex inheritance, with many different potential genes each of small effect, with different pathways for different individuals. Some have suggested that several genetic and other risk factors need to be present before a person becomes affected but this is still uncertain.[53] Candidate genes linked to an increased risk of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder as found in recent genome wide association studies appear to be partly separate and partly overlapping between the two disorders[54] Metaanalyses of genetic linkage studies have produced evidence of chromosomal regions increasing susceptibility,[55] which interacts directly with the Disrupted in Schizophrenia 1 (DISC1) gene protein[56] more recently the zinc finger protein 804A.[57] has been implicated as well as the chromosome 6 HLA region.[58] However, a large and comprehensive genetic study found no evidence of any significant association with any of 14 previously identified candidate genes.[59] Schizophrenia, in a small minority of cases, has been associated with rare deletions or duplications of tiny DNA sequences (known as copy number variants) disproportionately occurring within genes involved in neuronal signaling and brain development/human cognitive, behavioral, and psychological variation.[60][61][62]

Assuming a hereditary genetic basis, one question for evolutionary psychology is why genes that increase the likelihood of the condition evolved, assuming the condition would have been maladaptive from an evolutionary/reproductive point of view. One theory implicates genes involved in the evolution of language and human nature, but so far all theories have been disproved or remain unsubstantiated.[63][64]
Prenatal

Causal factors are thought to initially come together in early neurodevelopment to increase the risk of later developing schizophrenia. One curious finding is that people diagnosed with schizophrenia are more likely to have been born in winter or spring, (at least in the northern hemisphere).[65] There is now evidence that prenatal exposure to infections increases the risk for developing schizophrenia later in life, providing additional evidence for a link between in utero developmental pathology and risk of developing the condition.[66]
Social

Living in an urban environment has been consistently found to be a risk factor for schizophrenia.[67][68] Social disadvantage has been found to be a risk factor, including poverty[69] and migration related to social adversity, racial discrimination, family dysfunction, unemployment or poor housing conditions.[70] Childhood experiences of abuse or trauma have also been implicated as risk factors for a diagnosis of schizophrenia later in life.[71][72] Parenting is not held responsible for schizophrenia but unsupportive dysfunctional relationships may contribute to an increased risk.[73][74]
Induced Thoughts

It is well-known that "thinking happy thoughts" can make person feel better, lessen the pain, bring back a good mood, increasing levels of "feel-good" neurotransmitters like dopamine. Even thinking about reward like sex, drugs, alcohol, food, can increase the dopamine levels.[75][76] Researchers found that patients given a placebo released dopamine, just as the brain exposed to an active drug would do.[77] However, some patients are abusing the "thinking happy thoughts" reward system, deliberately invoking happy memories and happy thoughts again and again to naturally produce the "feel-good" neurotransmitters in their brain. This is similar to drug addiction: nearly all drugs, directly or indirectly, target the brain’s reward system by flooding the circuit with dopamine.[78] As a person continues to overstimulating the “reward circuit”, the brain adapts to the overwhelming surges in dopamine by producing less of the neurotransmitter or by reducing the number of receptors in the reward circuit. As a result, chemical’s impact on the reward circuit is lessened, reducing the abuser’s ability to enjoy the things that previously brought pleasure.[78] This decrease compels those addicted to dopamine to increasingly "think deep thoughts" in order to attempt to bring the neurotransmitter level back to normal — an effect known as tolerance. This explains why many of the schizophrenia patients have increased levels of dopamine. Development of the tolerance can eventually lead to profound changes in neurons and brain circuits, with the potential to severely compromise the long-term health of the brain.[79] Modern antipsychotics are designed to block dopamine function. Unfortunately, this blocking can also cause relapses in depression, and can increase addictive behaviors.[80]
Substance Abuse
See also: Dual diagnosis
Structure of a typical chemical synapse
Synapse Illustration unlabeled.svg
Postsynaptic
density
Voltage-
gated Ca++
channel
Synaptic
vesicle
Reuptake
pump
Receptor
Neurotransmitter
Axon terminal
Synaptic cleft
Dendrite
See also: Schizophrenia and smoking

In a recent study of people with schizophrenia and a substance abuse disorder, over a ten year period, "substantial proportions were above cutoffs selected by dual diagnosis clients as indicators of recovery."[81] Although about half of all patients with schizophrenia use drugs or alcohol, and the vast majority use tobacco, a clear causal connection between drug use and schizophrenia has been difficult to prove. The two most often used explanations for this are "substance use causes schizophrenia" and "substance use is a consequence of schizophrenia", and they both may be correct.[82] A 2007 meta-analysis estimated that cannabis use is statistically associated with a dose-dependent increase in risk of development of psychotic disorders, including schizophrenia, though the authors admit that some uncertainty about causality still remains.[83] Interestingly, cannabis use has increased dramatically in several countries over the past few decades, though the rates of psychosis and schizophrenia have generally not increased.[84] There is little evidence to suggest that other drugs including alcohol cause schizophrenia.[citation needed] Psychotic individuals may also use drugs to cope with unpleasant states such as depression, anxiety, boredom and loneliness, because drugs increase "feel-good" neurotransmitters level,[78][85] like dopamine and serotonin which level usually goes down during depression.[86][87] Various studies have shown that amphetamines increases the concentrations of dopamine in the synaptic cleft, thereby heightening the response of the post-synaptic neuron.[88] However, regarding psychosis itself, it is well understood that methamphetamine and cocaine use can result in methamphetamine- or cocaine-induced psychoses that present very similar symptomatology and may persist even when users remain abstinent.[89]
Mechanisms
Psychological

A number of psychological mechanisms have been implicated in the development and maintenance of schizophrenia. Cognitive biases that have been identified in those with a diagnosis or those at risk, especially when under stress or in confusing situations, include excessive attention to potential threats, jumping to conclusions, making external attributions, impaired reasoning about social situations and mental states, difficulty distinguishing inner speech from speech from an external source, and difficulties with early visual processing and maintaining concentration.[90][91][92][93] Some cognitive features may reflect global neurocognitive deficits in memory, attention, problem-solving, executive function or social cognition, while others may be related to particular issues and experiences.[73][94]

Despite a common appearance of "blunted affect", recent findings indicate that many individuals diagnosed with schizophrenia are emotionally responsive, particularly to stressful or negative stimuli, and that such sensitivity may cause vulnerability to symptoms or to the disorder.[95][96][97][95] Some evidence suggests that the content of delusional beliefs and psychotic experiences can reflect emotional causes of the disorder, and that how a person interprets such experiences can influence symptomatology.[98][99][100][101] The use of "safety behaviors" to avoid imagined threats may contribute to the chronicity of delusions.[102] Further evidence for the role of psychological mechanisms comes from the effects of psychotherapies on symptoms of schizophrenia.[103]
Neural

Studies using neuropsychological tests and brain imaging technologies such as fMRI and PET to examine functional differences in brain activity have shown that differences seem to most commonly occur in the frontal lobes, hippocampus and temporal lobes.[104] These differences have been linked to the neurocognitive deficits often associated with schizophrenia.[105]
Functional magnetic resonance imaging and other brain imaging technologies allow for the study of differences in brain activity among people diagnosed with schizophrenia

Particular focus has been placed upon the function of dopamine in the mesolimbic pathway of the brain. This focus largely resulted from the accidental finding that a drug group which blocks dopamine function, known as the phenothiazines, could reduce psychotic symptoms. It is also supported by the fact that amphetamines, which trigger the release of dopamine, may exacerbate the psychotic symptoms in schizophrenia.[106] An influential theory, known as the Dopamine hypothesis of schizophrenia, proposed that excess activation of D2 receptors was the cause of (the positive symptoms of) schizophrenia. Although postulated for about 20 years based on the D2 blockade effect common to all antipsychotics, it was not until the mid-1990s that PET and SPET imaging studies provided supporting evidence. This explanation is now thought to be simplistic, partly because newer antipsychotic medication (called atypical antipsychotic medication) can be equally effective as older medication (called typical antipsychotic medication), but also affects serotonin function and may have slightly less of a dopamine blocking effect.[107]

Interest has also focused on the neurotransmitter glutamate and the reduced function of the NMDA glutamate receptor in schizophrenia. This has largely been suggested by abnormally low levels of glutamate receptors found in postmortem brains of people previously diagnosed with schizophrenia[108] and the discovery that the glutamate blocking drugs such as phencyclidine and ketamine can mimic the symptoms and cognitive problems associated with the condition.[109] The fact that reduced glutamate function is linked to poor performance on tests requiring frontal lobe and hippocampal function and that glutamate can affect dopamine function, all of which have been implicated in schizophrenia, have suggested an important mediating (and possibly causal) role of glutamate pathways in schizophrenia.[110] Positive symptoms fail however to respond to glutamatergic medication.[111]

There have also been findings of differences in the size and structure of certain brain areas in schizophrenia. A 2006 metaanlaysis of MRI studies found that whole brain and hippocampal volume are reduced and that ventricular volume is increased in patients with a first psychotic episode relative to healthy controls. The average volumetric changes in these studies are however close to the limit of detection by MRI methods, so it remains to be determined whether schizophrenia is a neurodegenerative process that begins at about the time of symptom onset, or whether it is better characterised as a neurodevelopmental process that produces abnormal brain volumes at an early age.[112] In first episode psychosis typical antipsychotics like haloperidol were associated with significant reductions in gray matter volume, whereas atypical antipsychotics like olanzapine were not.[113] Studies in non-human primates found gray and white matter reductions for both typical and atypical antipsychotics.[114]

A 2009 meta-analysis of diffusion tensor imaging studies identified two consistent locations of reduced fractional anisotropy (roughly the level of organization of neural connections) in schizophrenia. The authors suggest that two networks of white matter tracts may be affected in schizophrenia, with the potential for "disconnection" of the gray matter regions which they link.[115] During fMRI studies, greater connectivity in the brain's default network and task-positive network has been observed in patients diagnosed with schizophrenia, and may reflect excessive attentional orientation toward introspection and toward extrospection, respectively. The greater anti-correlation between the two networks suggests excessive rivalry between the networks.[116]
Screening and prevention

There are no reliable markers for the later development of schizophrenia although research is being conducted into how well a combination of genetic risk plus non-disabling psychosis-like experience predicts later diagnosis.[117] People who fulfill the 'ultra high-risk mental state' criteria, that include a family history of schizophrenia plus the presence of transient or self-limiting psychotic experiences, have a 20–40% chance of being diagnosed with the condition after one year.[118] The use of psychological treatments and medication has been found effective in reducing the chances of people who fulfill the 'high-risk' criteria from developing full-blown schizophrenia.[119] However, the treatment of people who may never develop schizophrenia is controversial,[120] in light of the side-effects of antipsychotic medication; particularly with respect to the potentially disfiguring tardive dyskinesia and the rare but potentially lethal neuroleptic malignant syndrome.[121] The most widely used form of preventative health care for schizophrenia takes the form of public education campaigns that provide information on risk factors and early symptoms, with the aim to improve detection and provide treatment earlier for those experiencing delays.[122] The new clinical approach early intervention in psychosis is a secondary prevention strategy to prevent further episodes and prevent the long term disability associated with schizophrenia.
Management
Main article: Treatment of schizophrenia
Molecule of chlorpromazine, which revolutionized treatment of schizophrenia in the 1950s

The concept of a cure as such remains controversial, as there is no consensus on the definition, although some criteria for the remission of symptoms have recently been suggested.[123] The effectiveness of schizophrenia treatment is often assessed using standardized methods, one of the most common being the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS).[124] Management of symptoms and improving function is thought to be more achievable than a cure. Treatment was revolutionized in the mid-1950s with the development and introduction of chlorpromazine.[125] A recovery model is increasingly adopted, emphasizing hope, empowerment and social inclusion.[126]

Hospitalization may occur with severe episodes of schizophrenia. This can be voluntary or (if mental health legislation allows it) involuntary (called civil or involuntary commitment). Long-term inpatient stays are now less common due to deinstitutionalization, although can still occur.[6] Following (or in lieu of) a hospital admission, support services available can include drop-in centers, visits from members of a community mental health team or Assertive Community Treatment team, supported employment[127] and patient-led support groups.

In many non-Western societies, schizophrenia may only be treated with more informal, community-led methods. Multiple international surveys by the World Health Organization over several decades have indicated that the outcome for people diagnosed with schizophrenia in non-Western countries is on average better there than for people in the West.[128] Many clinicians and researchers suspect the relative levels of social connectedness and acceptance are the difference,[129] although further cross-cultural studies are seeking to clarify the findings.
Medication

The first line psychiatric treatment for schizophrenia is antipsychotic medication.[130] These can reduce the positive symptoms of psychosis. Most antipsychotics take around 7–14 days to have their main effect. Currently available antipsychotics fail, however, to significantly ameliorate the negative symptoms, and the improvements on cognition may be attributed to the practice effect.[131][132][133][134]
Risperidone (trade name Risperdal) is a common atypical antipsychotic medication

The newer atypical antipsychotic drugs are usually preferred for initial treatment over the older typical antipsychotic, although they are expensive and are more likely to induce weight gain and obesity-related diseases.[135] In 2008, results from a major randomized trial sponsored by the US National Institute of Mental Health (Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness, or CATIE) found that a representative first-generation antipsychotic, perphenazine, was as effective as and more cost-effective than several newer drugs (olanzapine, perphenazine, quetiapine, risperidone, or ziprasidone) taken for up to 18 months. The atypical antipsychotic which patients were willing to continue for the longest, olanzapine, was associated with considerable weight gain and risk of metabolic syndrome. Clozapine was most effective for people with a poor response to other drugs, but it had troublesome side effects. Because the trial excluded patients with tardive dyskinesia, its relevance to these people is unclear.[136] Also careful approach need to be taken to antipsychotics that are blocking dopamine function, because excessive blocking of this neurotransmitter responsible for pleasure system, can cause relapses in depression, and this can increase addictive behaviors in patients who may try to compensate dopamine deficiency with drugs or alcohol[137] (since amphetamines are increase the concentrations of dopamine in the synaptic cleft).[88]

Because of their reportedly lower risk of side effects that affect mobility, atypical antipsychotics have been first-line treatment for early-onset schizophrenia for many years before certain drugs in this class were approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in children and teenagers with schizophrenia. This advantage comes at the cost of an increased risk of metabolic syndrome and obesity, which is of concern in the context of long-term use begun at an early age. Especially in the case of children and teenagers who have schizophrenia, medication should be used in combination with individual therapy and family-based interventions.[10]

Recent reviews have refuted the claim that atypical antipsychotics have fewer extrapyramidal side effects than typical antipsychotics, especially when the latter are used in low doses or when low potency antipsychotics are chosen.[138]

Prolactin elevations have been reported in women with schizophrenia taking atypical antipsychotics.[139] It remains unclear whether the newer antipsychotics reduce the chances of developing neuroleptic malignant syndrome, a rare but serious and potentially fatal neurological disorder most often caused by an adverse reaction to neuroleptic or antipsychotic drugs.[140]

Response of symptoms to medication is variable: treatment-resistant schizophrenia is a term used for the failure of symptoms to respond satisfactorily to at least two different antipsychotics.[141] Patients in this category may be prescribed clozapine,[142] a medication of superior effectiveness but several potentially lethal side effects including agranulocytosis and myocarditis.[143] Clozapine may have the additional benefit of reducing propensity for substance abuse in schizophrenic patients.[144] For other patients who are unwilling or unable to take medication regularly, long-acting depot preparations of antipsychotics may be given every two weeks to achieve control. The United States and Australia are two countries with laws allowing the forced administration of this type of medication on those who refuse but are otherwise stable and living in the community. At least one study suggested that in the longer-term some individuals may do better not taking antipsychotics.[145]
Psychological and social interventions

Psychotherapy is also widely recommended and used in the treatment of schizophrenia, although services may often be confined to pharmacotherapy because of reimbursement problems or lack of training.[146]

Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is used to target specific symptoms[147][148][149] and improve related issues such as self-esteem, social functioning, and insight. Although the results of early trials were inconclusive[150] as the therapy advanced from its initial applications in the mid 1990s, more recent reviews clearly show CBT is an effective treatment for the psychotic symptoms of schizophrenia.[151][152]

Another approach is cognitive remediation, a technique aimed at remediating the neurocognitive deficits sometimes present in schizophrenia. Based on techniques of neuropsychological rehabilitation, early evidence has shown it to be cognitively effective, with some improvements related to measurable changes in brain activation as measured by fMRI.[153][154] A similar approach known as cognitive enhancement therapy, which focuses on social cognition as well as neurocognition, has shown efficacy.[155]

Family therapy or education, which addresses the whole family system of an individual with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, has been consistently found to be beneficial, at least if the duration of intervention is longer-term.[156][157][158] Aside from therapy, the effect of schizophrenia on families and the burden on carers has been recognized, with the increasing availability of self-help books on the subject.[159][160] There is also some evidence for benefits from social skills training, although there have also been significant negative findings.[161][162] Some studies have explored the possible benefits of music therapy and other creative therapies.[163][164][165]

The Soteria model is alternative to inpatient hospital treatment using a minimal medication approach. It is described as a milieu-therapeutic recovery method, characterized by its founder as "the 24 hour a day application of interpersonal phenomenologic interventions by a nonprofessional staff, usually without neuroleptic drug treatment, in the context of a small, homelike, quiet, supportive, protective, and tolerant social environment."[166] Although research evidence is limited, a 2008 systematic review found the programme equally as effective as treatment with medication in people diagnosed with first and second episode schizophrenia.[167]
Other

Electroconvulsive therapy is not considered a first line treatment but may be prescribed in cases where other treatments have failed. It is more effective where symptoms of catatonia are present,[168] and is recommended for use under NICE guidelines in the UK for catatonia if previously effective, though there is no recommendation for use for schizophrenia otherwise.[169] Psychosurgery has now become a rare procedure and is not a recommended treatment.[170]

Service-user led movements have become integral to the recovery process in Europe and the United States; groups such as the Hearing Voices Network and the Paranoia Network have developed a self-help approach that aims to provide support and assistance outside the traditional medical model adopted by mainstream psychiatry. By avoiding framing personal experience in terms of criteria for mental illness or mental health, they aim to destigmatize the experience and encourage individual responsibility and a positive self-image. Partnerships between hospitals and consumer-run groups are becoming more common, with services working toward remediating social withdrawal, building social skills and reducing rehospitalization.[171]

Regular exercise can have healthful effects on both the physical and mental health and well-being of individuals with schizophrenia.[172]
Prognosis
Course
John Nash, a US mathematician, began showing signs of paranoid schizophrenia during his college years. Despite having stopped taking his prescribed medication, Nash continued his studies and was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1994. His life was depicted in the 2001 film A Beautiful Mind.

Coordinated by the World Health Organization and published in 2001, The International Study of Schizophrenia (ISoS) was a long-term follow-up study of 1633 individuals diagnosed with schizophrenia around the world. Of the 75% who were available for follow-up, half had a favourable outcome, and 16% had a delayed recovery after an early unremitting course. More usually, the course in the first two years predicted the long-term course. Early social intervention was also related to a better outcome. The findings were held as important in moving patients, carers and clinicians away from the prevalent belief of the chronic nature of the condition.[173] A review of major longitudinal studies in North America noted this variation in outcomes, although outcome was on average worse than for other psychotic and psychiatric disorders. A moderate number of patients with schizophrenia were seen to remit and remain well; the review raised the question that some may not require maintenance medication.[174]

A clinical study using strict recovery criteria (concurrent remission of positive and negative symptoms and adequate social and vocational functioning continuously for two years) found a recovery rate of 14% within the first five years.[175] A 5-year community study found that 62% showed overall improvement on a composite measure of clinical and functional outcomes.[176]

World Health Organization studies have noted that individuals diagnosed with schizophrenia have much better long-term outcomes in developing countries (India, Colombia and Nigeria) than in developed countries (United States, United Kingdom, Ireland, Denmark, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Japan, and Russia),[177] despite antipsychotic drugs not being widely available.
Defining recovery

Rates are not always comparable across studies because exact definitions of remission and recovery have not been widely established. A "Remission in Schizophrenia Working Group" has proposed standardized remission criteria involving "improvements in core signs and symptoms to the extent that any remaining symptoms are of such low intensity that they no longer interfere significantly with behavior and are below the threshold typically utilized in justifying an initial diagnosis of schizophrenia".[178] Standardized recovery criteria have also been proposed by a number of different researchers, with the stated DSM definitions of a "complete return to premorbid levels of functioning” or "complete return to full functioning" seen as inadequate, impossible to measure, incompatible with the variability in how society defines normal psychosocial functioning, and contributing to self-fulfilling pessimism and stigma.[179] Some mental health professionals may have quite different basic perceptions and concepts of recovery than individuals with the diagnosis, including those in the Consumer/Survivor/Ex-Patient Movement.[180] One notable limitation of nearly all the research criteria is failure to address the person's own evaluations and feelings about their life. Schizophrenia and recovery often involve a continuing loss of self-esteem, alienation from friends and family, interruption of school and career, and social stigma, "experiences that cannot just be reversed or forgotten".[126] An increasingly influential model defines recovery as a process, similar to being "in recovery" from drug and alcohol problems, and emphasizes a personal journey involving factors such as hope, choice, empowerment, social inclusion and achievement.[126]
Predictors

Several factors have been associated with a better overall prognosis: Being female, rapid (vs. insidious) onset of symptoms, older age of first episode, predominantly positive (rather than negative) symptoms, presence of mood symptoms, and good pre-illness functioning.[181][182] The strengths and internal resources of the individual concerned, such as determination or psychological resilience, have also been associated with better prognosis.[174] The attitude and level of support from people in the individual's life can have a significant impact; research framed in terms of the negative aspects of this—the level of critical comments, hostility, and intrusive or controlling attitudes, termed high 'Expressed emotion'—has consistently indicated links to relapse.[183] Most research on predictive factors is correlational in nature, however, and a clear cause-and-effect relationship is often difficult to establish.
Mortality
See also: Physical health in schizophrenia

In a study of over 168,000 Swedish citizens undergoing psychiatric treatment, schizophrenia was associated with an average life expectancy of approximately 80–85% of that of the general population; women were found to have a slightly better life expectancy than men, and a diagnosis of schizophrenia was associated with an overall better life expectancy than substance abuse, personality disorder, heart attack and stroke.[184] Other identified factors include smoking,[185] poor diet, little exercise and the negative health effects of psychiatric drugs.[8]

There is a higher than average suicide rate associated with schizophrenia. This has been cited at 10%, but a more recent analysis of studies and statistics revises the estimate at 4.9%, most often occurring in the period following onset or first hospital admission.[186] Several times more attempt suicide.[187] There are a variety of reasons and risk factors.[188][189]
Violence

The relationship between violent acts and schizophrenia is a contentious topic. Current research indicates that the percentage of people with schizophrenia who commit violent acts is higher than the percentage of people without any disorder, but lower than is found for disorders such as alcoholism, and the difference is reduced or not found in same-neighbourhood comparisons when related factors are taken into account, notably sociodemographic variables and substance misuse.[190] Studies have indicated that 5% to 10% of those charged with murder in Western countries have a schizophrenia spectrum disorder.[191][192][193]

The occurrence of psychosis in schizophrenia has sometimes been linked to a higher risk of violent acts. Findings on the specific role of delusions or hallucinations have been inconsistent, but have focused on delusional jealousy, perception of threat and command hallucinations. It has been proposed that a certain type of individual with schizophrenia may be most likely to offend, characterized by a history of educational difficulties, low IQ, conduct disorder, early-onset substance misuse and offending prior to diagnosis.[191]

Individuals with a diagnosis of schizophrenia are often the victims of violent crime—at least 14 times more often than they are perpetrators.[194][195] Another consistent finding is a link to substance misuse, particularly alcohol,[196] among the minority who commit violent acts. Violence by or against individuals with schizophrenia typically occurs in the context of complex social interactions within a family setting,[197] and is also an issue in clinical services[198] and in the wider community.[199]
Epidemiology
Disability-adjusted life year for schizophrenia per 100,000 inhabitants in 2002.
no data ≤ 185 185–197 197–207 207–218 218–229 229–240 240–251 251–262 262–273 273–284 284–295 ≥ 295

Schizophrenia occurs equally in males and females, although typically appears earlier in men—the peak ages of onset are 20–28 years for males and 26–32 years for females.[1] Onset in childhood is much rarer,[200] as is onset in middle- or old age.[201] The lifetime prevalence of schizophrenia—the proportion of individuals expected to experience the disease at any time in their lives—is commonly given at 1%. However, a 2002 systematic review of many studies found a lifetime prevalence of 0.55%.[3] Despite the received wisdom that schizophrenia occurs at similar rates worldwide, its prevalence varies across the world,[202] within countries,[203] and at the local and neighbourhood level.[204] One particularly stable and replicable finding has been the association between living in an urban environment and schizophrenia diagnosis, even after factors such as drug use, ethnic group and size of social group have been controlled for.[67] Schizophrenia is known to be a major cause of disability. In a 1999 study of 14 countries, active psychosis was ranked the third-most-disabling condition after quadriplegia and dementia and ahead of paraplegia and blindness.[205]
History
Main article: History of schizophrenia

Accounts of a schizophrenia-like syndrome are thought to be rare in the historical record before the 1800s, although reports of irrational, unintelligible, or uncontrolled behavior were common. A detailed case report in 1797 concerning James Tilly Matthews, and accounts by Phillipe Pinel published in 1809, are often regarded as the earliest cases of the illness in the medical and psychiatric literature.[206] Schizophrenia was first described as a distinct syndrome affecting teenagers and young adults by Bénédict Morel in 1853, termed démence précoce (literally 'early dementia'). The term dementia praecox was used in 1891 by Arnold Pick to in a case report of a psychotic disorder. In 1893 Emil Kraepelin introduced a broad new distinction in the classification of mental disorders between dementia praecox and mood disorder (termed manic depression and including both unipolar and bipolar depression). Kraepelin believed that dementia praecox was primarily a disease of the brain,[207] and particularly a form of dementia, distinguished from other forms of dementia, such as Alzheimer's disease, which typically occur later in life.[208]

The word schizophrenia—which translates roughly as "splitting of the mind" and comes from the Greek roots schizein (σχίζειν, "to split") and phrēn, phren- (φρήν, φρεν-, "mind")[209]—was coined by Eugen Bleuler in 1908 and was intended to describe the separation of function between personality, thinking, memory, and perception. Bleuler described the main symptoms as 4 A's: flattened Affect, Autism, impaired Association of ideas and Ambivalence.[210] Bleuler realized that the illness was not a dementia as some of his patients improved rather than deteriorated and hence proposed the term schizophrenia instead.

In the early 1970s, the diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia was the subject of a number of controversies which eventually led to the operational criteria used today. It became clear after the 1971 US-UK Diagnostic Study that schizophrenia was diagnosed to a far greater extent in America than in Europe.[211] This was partly due to looser diagnostic criteria in the US, which used the DSM-II manual, contrasting with Europe and its ICD-9. David Rosenhan's 1972 study, published in the journal Science under the title On being sane in insane places, concluded that the diagnosis of schizophrenia in the US was often subjective and unreliable.[212] These were some of the factors in leading to the revision not only of the diagnosis of schizophrenia, but the revision of the whole DSM manual, resulting in the publication of the DSM-III in 1980.{subscription required}[213]

The term schizophrenia is commonly misunderstood to mean that affected persons have a "split personality". Although some people diagnosed with schizophrenia may hear voices and may experience the voices as distinct personalities, schizophrenia does not involve a person changing among distinct multiple personalities. The confusion arises in part due to the literal interpretation of Bleuler's term schizophrenia. The first known misuse of the term to mean "split personality" was in an article by the poet T. S. Eliot in 1933.[214]
Society and culture
Stigma

Social stigma has been identified as a major obstacle in the recovery of patients with schizophrenia.[215] In a large, representative sample from a 1999 study, 12.8% of Americans believed that individuals with schizophrenia were "very likely" to do something violent against others, and 48.1% said that they were "somewhat likely" to. Over 74% said that people with schizophrenia were either "not very able" or "not able at all" to make decisions concerning their treatment, and 70.2% said the same of money management decisions.[216] The perception of individuals with psychosis as violent has more than doubled in prevalence since the 1950s, according to one meta-analysis.[217]

In 2002, the Japanese Society of Psychiatry and Neurology changed the term for schizophrenia from Seishin-Bunretsu-Byo　精神分裂病 (mind-split-disease) to Tōgō-shitchō-shō　統合失調症 (integration disorder) to reduce stigma,[218] The new name was inspired by the biopsychosocial model, and it increased the percentage of cases in which patients were informed of the diagnosis from 36.7% to 69.7% over three years.[219]
Iconic cultural depictions

The book and film A Beautiful Mind chronicled the life of John Forbes Nash, a Nobel Prize-winning mathematician who was diagnosed with schizophrenia. The Marathi film Devrai (featuring Atul Kulkarni) is a presentation of a patient with schizophrenia. The film, set in Western India, shows the behavior, mentality, and struggle of the patient as well as his loved-ones. Other factual books have been written by relatives on family members; Australian journalist Anne Deveson told the story of her son's battle with schizophrenia in Tell me I'm Here,[220] later made into a movie.

In Bulgakov's The Master and Margarita the poet Ivan Bezdomnyj is institutionalized and diagnosed with schizophrenia after witnessing the devil (Woland) predict Berlioz's death. The book The Eden Express by Mark Vonnegut recounts his struggle with schizophrenia and his recovering journey.
See also

* Persecutory delusions
* Catastrophic Schizophrenia
* Schizocaria

I love Christians.

Hey man speek for your self, my church is standing up for Christians and I know a lot of churches that are doing the same.

ADULTS ONLY!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaBDxkAprjo&feature=related

In 1604, King James I of England authorized that a new translation of the Bible into English be started. It was finished in 1611, just 85 years after the first translation of the New Testament into English appeared (Tyndale, 1526). The Authorized Version, or King James Version, quickly became the standard for English-speaking Protestants. Its flowing language and prose rhythm has had a profound influence on the literature of the past 300 years. The King James Version present on the Bible Gateway matches the 1987 printing. The KJV is public domain in the United States.

After that little bit of info from wikipedia, one has to wonder just how different this is from Original Texts and translations from original Aramaic,Hebrew,Greek,Latin etc, after all it was publish over 1600 years after the the fact, and another 3,000 years after Torah scrolls were begun. AND now we are 5 centuries
after that and multitude of additional revised Bibles all being proclaimed as the "Latest & Greatest" are being published even now. So who really knows what is true and what is a figment of someones imagination?