Saying No to the Gods-In the World Today

     A a general rule, it is probably not a wise thing to displease gods or goddesses. Most seem to have normal human temperaments but superhuman powers.  More often than not, the deities are even more hot-headed than their human underlings. Probably, and perhaps more importantly, the deities of today (much like those in the past) don’t like insults directed at anyone or anything associated with them, such as priests or prophets or rituals, systems of belief or religious law. Sacred places, relics, holy writings and artifacts are also to be revered and not to be messed with.

Mahatma Gandhi

     In Hinduism, there is not even any word for blasphemy. The religion's concepts of  'utmost freedom of thought and action' attracts many followers and Hinduism does not prohibit anyone to question its fundamental beliefs nor has it ever banished anyone if they wrote a differing scripture or failed to observe a particular ritual. Indeed, Mahatma Gandhi wrote, 'even atheists can call themselves Hindus'.

     Yet despite the general tolerance and pluralism of the Hindu religion, the attitude of some Hindus toward people of Veda-rejecting faiths, such as Jains and Buddhists as well as  practitioners of some Hindu Tantric traditions, is similar to those who condemn blasphemy.

     These faiths, having grown out of Hinduism and fall into a different 'category' from those such as Judaism and Christianity, which never received the Vedas. Those considered heretical or blasphemous are deemed as Nastika.

     In September, 2007, Hinduism apparently 'upgraded' itself to include blasphemy. The Bharatiya Janata Party or BJP (Indian People's Party) which has appointed itself as the official spokesman for all Hindus, accused the government of ‘blasphemy’ for ‘telling the Supreme Court that there was no historical evidence to establish the existence of Lord Rama or the other characters in Ramayana.

     The omnipotent, omniscient,and omnipresent God who is worshipped by practitioners of the Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity and Islam), one is led to believe, would be less sensitive than his pagan predecessors but that does not appear to be the case.  The Almighty, the 'perfect Being', according to scripture, seems to suffer from the same weaknesses as humankind, sensitive to insult, prone to jealousy and rage.

Flag of the Bharatiya Janata Party

     In the third book of the Jewish Torah, Leviticus 24:16 states that 'he that blasphemes the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death'.

     The Talmud laid down the statutory punishment for transgressing any one of the Seven Laws of Noah (among which is the prohibition of blasphemy) as capital punishment by decapitation, considered one of the lightest of the four modes of execution of criminals. Seven, a sacred number in many religions (see post: Seven Sages and Four Horsemen).

     The Seven Laws of Noah form the major part of the Noachide Laws a code of moral imperatives that, according to the Talmud were given by God as a binding set of laws for the children of Noah (all of mankind). The rainbow is the modern symbol of the Noahide Movement recalling the rainbow that appeared after the Great Flood of the Bible. The rainbow is one of many recurring themes in religious symbolism (see post: Rainbows, Gods and Goddesses).

Torah Scroll

     In Islam, the Koran and the hadith (sayings attributed to Mohammed) do not mention blasphemy and, according to some Muslim scholars, nothing in Islam supports blasphemy law.  It has been Muslim jurists who have made the offense part of Sharia law and the penalties for blasphemy may include fines, flogging, incarceration, amputation, hanging, or beheading. Muslim clerics call for the punishment of an alleged blasphemer by issuing a fatwa.

     But no matter by what name the deity or deities may be called, blasphemy has always and remains a political act. Some argue that it is not blasphemy but rather, laws which outlaw blasphemy that are the problem. In certain countries with a 'state religion' (this term, itself, describes a mixture of politics with religion), blasphemy is outlawed under the criminal code. These laws are, at times, used to victimize non-members of as well as dissident members of, the official 'state religion'.

The Rainbow -Symbol of the Noahide Movement

     Laws against blasphemy have existed in most Western countries in the last three centuries and derived from  the much older laws against heresy which were designed to protect the Christian church against any form of dissidence (see post: The Pointed Finger of Heresy). The origins of this law can in turn be traced back to the New Testament.

     The early Christians saw themselves as possessors of the One Truth and they became wary of those who, by teaching false doctrines, or by insulting God or Christ, threatened to defile this truth. Few upheld their own version of the truth more zealously than (Saint) Paul. In his second letter to the Corinthians, he lashed out at those Christians who opposed him, calling them ‘false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ'. In Corinthians 2:13-15, Paul declares that 'Their end will correspond to their deeds'.

(Saint) Paul

     But even in modern times, new laws against blasphemy are being created. In the early 21st century, blasphemy became an issue for the United Nations. Early on in the 21st century, the General Assembly of the United Nations passed several resolutions which called upon the world to take action against the 'defamation of religions'.

     Some argue that it is not blasphemy but rather, laws which outlaw blasphemy that are the problem. In certain countries with a 'state religion' (this term, itself, describes a mixture of politics with religion), blasphemy is outlawed under the criminal code. These laws are, at times, used to victimize non-members of as well as dissident members of, the official 'state religion'.

     Even Richard Dawkins, well-known evolutionary biologist and atheist writer (see post: The Atheist) withdrew some of his critical (blasphemous?) written work, in deference to what appeared to be an American taboo against offending religious opinion. Dawkins said: 'I remain baffled by the fact that liberal arbiters freely allow us to offend against political, economic, musical, artistic and literary opinion, but religious opinion is almost universally regarded as off-limits, even by atheists'.

Richard Dawkins

     There have been several examples of blasphemy in modern society. The reaction to these cases is varied and, at times, seemingly unpredictable.

     The crime of blasphemy appears several times in the Christian Bible and the related the 1979 movie created by the British comedy troupe Monty Python, the Life of Brian.
     In the Bible, some characters are stoned to death for blasphemy, and Jesus is condemned to death for blasphemy by the Sanhedrin. In Life of Brian, a character is stoned to death for telling his wife that a piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah.
     Life of Brian tells the story of Brian Cohen, a young Jewish man who is born on the same day as and next door to Jesus and is subsequently mistaken for the Messiah.

Brian Cohen in Life of Brian

     Because of the religious satire in the film, accusations of blasphemy arose from some religious groups. Thirty-nine local authorities in the UK either imposed an outright ban or imposed an 18 years or older restriction on its viewing. Ireland and Norway banned the showing of Life of Brian altogether.

     Despite these hurdles (or perhaps because of them), the film was a huge box-office success, grossing fourth-highest of any film in the UK in 1979 and highest of any British film in the United States that year. It is the first Monty Python film to receive an R rating (restricted) in the United States.

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini

     On  February 14, 1989 the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, supreme leader of Iran pronounced his fatwa, in effect a death threat against Salman Rushdie and his publishers for the publication of Rushdie's book, The Satanic Verses. Many Muslims accused Rushdie of blasphemy or unbelief  and numerous killings, attempted killings, and bombings resulted from Muslim anger over the book.
     One of the 'blasphemous' acts involved the title of the book itself. The title, Satanic Verses refers to a legend of the Prophet Mohammed, when a few verses were supposedly spoken by him as part of the Koran and then withdrawn on the grounds that the devil had sent them to deceive him into thinking that they had come from God.

Salman Rushdie

     'Bloody Mary' is the fourteenth episode (aired December 7, 2005)  of the ninth season of the American television cartoon series South Park. In the episode, Randy, driving while intoxicated, loses his driver's license and is forced to go to meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous, where he learns that his alcoholism is a potentially fatal disease.
     Meanwhile, a statue of the Virgin Mary starts bleeding (out its ass) and Randy believes that he can be cured of his potentially fatal illness if the statue bleeds on him.
     December 7, 2005 was the eve of the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, a Catholic observance related specifically to the Virgin Mary. The Catholic League demanded an apology and that the episode be permanently retired. When Comedy Central (the parent company of Viacom), producers of South Park re-aired the episodes on December 28, 2005, 'Bloody Mary' was absent from the broadcast.

     In Denmark, the Muhammad cartoons controversy began after 12 editorial cartoons, depicting the Prophet Mohammed were published in the newspaper Jyllands-Posten on 30 September 2005. The newspaper announced that this publication was an attempt to contribute to the debate regarding self-censorship and criticism of Islam but many Muslim groups in Denmark saw otherwise and the issue eventually led to worldwide protests.

South Park's 'Bloody Mary'

     In a 2008 episode of  the American cartoon series Family Guy, Jesus returns to earth, gets drunk, and is discovered unconscious in the apartment of Mary-Kate Olsen. In another episode, Jesus and God are depicted as bar room hang-outs who try to pick up women.

     The Book of Mormon is a New York Broadway musical written by the South Park 'brain trust' which was first shown in 2011. While murderous riots were taking place in the Middle East, 'inspired' by perceived insults to Islam in other parts of the world, The Book of Mormon, a satirical look at a particular Christian sect (The Mormons, Church of Latter Day Saints) was inciting a 'laugh riot' in America with three full-page ads in the program of the production, taken out by the Mormons themselves.

Jyllands-Posten Cartoon

     There is perhaps, something honorable in a group which can accept criticism and even laugh at itself rather than protest and complain about the opinions of others.

     The Innocence of Muslims, is the Muhammad Movie produced in 2012, by Sam Bacile which, some say, triggered a group of  Muslims to kill United States ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens. The anti Islam video claims Islam is a lie and Mohammed was a pedophile. The short movie is laughable and extremely poorly done but it has inspired angry mobs to take to the streets in many Arab countries.
     But the assault of the US embassy in Libya was more than just a protest against a 'blasphemous' film. Those who attacked the compound and murdered the ambassador were members of  'jihadist' groups, possibly with links to al-Qaeda - a case of politics mixing with religion, once again.

The Book of Mormon

     Terry Jones, the Florida pastor best-known for advocating and carrying out burnings of the Muslim holy book, the Koran, has acted as the film’s promoter. This film certainly appears to mock Islam and that, in itself, rather than just blasphemy, is simply juvenile, unproductive and plain mean-spirited. Criticism may be good but mockery rarely is.
     But in the Muslim world, there exists a 'red line' across which nobody can step. Recently elected Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi used that exact term when he declared this week that the Prophet 'is a red line nobody can touch'.

Scene From the Innocence of Muslims

     Blasphemy laws survived in Britain, America, and many European countries including Germany throughout the nineteenth century but more recently, these laws have fallen into disuse. Indeed in Germany, the law against blasphemy has been abolished. But in Britain, blasphemy laws remain in force and, in theory at least, they are still the main means whereby Christianity is protected against obscene or extreme abuse. In practice, they have scarcely played any role for many years and in 1949, the British blasphemy law was declared obsolete.

     In 1977,  the offence of blasphemy was revived in Britain. This occurred when the modern purity campaigner, Mary Whitehouse, instituted a private prosecution against the magazine Gay News for publishing an erotic  poem about Jesus. Although this prosecution was successful, one of the effects of Mary Whitehouse’s action was to bring the British blasphemy laws into active disrepute and resulted in a vigorous campaign to abolish the laws.

Mary Whitehouse

     Blasphemers, according to the Torah, should be put to death and according to the Christian St. Thomas Aquinas, their sin is worse than murder.   Of all the Abrahamic religions, Islam is the most tolerant of blasphemy, or at least, it used to be.
     The foundational texts of Islam do not make a big a deal of blasphemy. Perhaps the thinking was that if  'God is great',  He should be great enough not to care what people say about Him. But even before the dawn of the modern era, Islam had caught up with Judaism and Christianity in its revilement of those who expressed disagreement with their particular belief.

     More recently, blasphemy has been taken as an incitement to violence on several occasions in Pakistan. But the history of blasphemy laws in that country relate to both colonial dictat as well as state/political interests.

     In 1927, the British colonial rulers of the Indian sub-continent made it a criminal offence to commit 'deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religious belief'. The law did not, however, discriminate between religions.
     This same law was retained when Pakistan gained independence in 1947 under the rule of the country’s  founder Mohammad Ali Jinnah. It was Pakistan’s late military ruler Mohammed Ziaul Haq (in power 1977 - 1988) who made several additions to its blasphemy laws, including life imprisonment, specifically for those defiling or desecrating the Holy Koran.

Mohammed Ziaul Haq

     This led, in 1984 ,to  followers of the minority Ahmadi sect (who believe that Ahmad was a prophet) being banned from calling themselves Muslims, punishable with three years in jail. In 1986,  the death penalty was instituted for anyone found guilty of defaming Islam.
     Between 1927 and 1985, only 10 blasphemy cases were reportedly heard in court but since then more than 4,000 cases have been handled.
     A Christian woman, Aasia Bibi, was sentenced to death by hanging in Punjab in November, 2010 after being found guilty of insulting the Prophet Mohammed following an argument with Muslim women in her village.
     A proposal to amend the blasphemy laws met with protests and the government declared that it had no intention of changing it.

     Salmaan Taseer was a Pakistani businessman and politician and governor of the province of Punjab, a member of the ruling Pakistan People's Party (PPP) government. He was one of the few in power who opposed the country's blasphemy law and was killed in a hail of bullets by his bodyguard on January 4, 2011 for vocally seeking to amend the law and appealing for clemency for Bibi.

Aasia Bibi

     Pakistan still maintains on its statutes strict laws against blasphemy of the state religion, Islam. There have, however been no executions for blasphemy, most of those convicted of the offence, having had their sentences overturned or commuted on appeal.

     'Saying no to the gods' - in some countries, it is ignored, in others it is simply laughed at. But in many areas of the world, 'blasphemy' is considered an offence to religion and, more importantly, a threat to the status quo of the state.

Salmaan Taseer

     * The History of Blasphemy: subject of research for the novel  The Tao of the Thirteenth God - Amazon Kindle.

Saying No to the Gods - In the Beginning

     Blasphemy has been defined as the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for a religious god/goddess or showing irreverence towards religious or holy persons or religious items such as relics (see post: The Relics of Religion). In some areas of the world, blasphemy can be punishable by death and other countries have, on their statutes, laws which allow those who feel that they have been offended by blasphemous words or acts to press legal charges.

Blasphemy?

     In English, the word ‘blasphemy’ has roots in ancient Greek where the word carried the meaning of ‘reputation’ or ‘injury’ or ‘speaking evil of’. In today’s world, the term ‘blasphemy’ is usually used in reference to religious ideas and, in effect, is an act ‘saying no to the gods’.   

     One of the most well-known accusations of blasphemy was that against Jesus by the priests of the Jewish court, the Sanhedrin, perhaps more for political purposes at the time, than for religious reasons. Mark 14:55-59 states that the chief priests had sought witness against Jesus to put him to death but did not find any, so they arranged false witness against him.

     In Mark 14:61, the high priest asked Jesus: ‘Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am’. A blasphemous declaration at the time. “Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses?’ (Matthew 26:65).

The Sanhedrin

     But well before, the trial of Jesus, another trial for blasphemy had taken place, under a different time, a different empire and with different gods.

     In 'Apology', Plato, perhaps the most famous of Socrates‘ students, relates an account of Socrates’ statement of defence. The nature of the charges against the philosopher are unclear, but Socrates sums them up as consisting of allegations that he is ‘a doer of evil, and corrupter of the youth, and that he does not believe in the gods of the state, and has other new divinities of his own.’
In effect, Socrates’ accusers cited two impious acts – failing to acknowledge the gods that the city acknowledged and introducing new deities’.

The Death of Socrates

     In both cases, that of the trial of Jesus and the trial of Socrates, those who held influence and power felt threatened (the priests of the Sanhedrin in the case of Jesus, the elite of the city-state of Athens, in the case of Socrates) by men who had significant followings. The political answer to this problem, of course, was to get rid of the two trouble-makers.

     Other than claiming that you are special, the ‘Son of God‘ (see post: The Sons of God) or a prophet, a person can be accused of blasphemy if he/she uses language unacceptable or creates depictions that are ‘disallowed’ by the law or are unacceptable to those in power.
     But human beings often have an unstoppable need to express their frustration and anger and it is for this reason that the minced oath became a common form of verbal expression. A minced oath is a euphemism, an expression formed by altering a taboo term to reduce the original term’s objectionable characteristic. Many languages have minced oaths, the English language perhaps, more than most including the following:

              Original (taboo) Word                                                 Minced Oath
                         God                                                                    gosh, golly (one of the Ten Commandments of the Hebrew and Christian Bible states: ‘Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain’).
                        Christ                                                                   crikey, cripes
                        Jesus                                                                    gee, geez
                   Jesus Christ                                                    Jiminy Cricket, Cheese and Rice
                        Hell                                                                          heck

                       damn                                                                      darn,  dang
                       shit                                                                    shoot, sugar, shucks

The Ten Commandments

     Other examples include ‘gadzooks‘, an altered pronunciation of God’s hooks, the nails with which Jesus was nailed to the cross and ‘criminy‘, an alteration of Christ’s money, the thirty pieces of silver paid to Judas for him to betray his friend.    

     Pagan gods are, even today, still referred to in minced oath in expressions such as ‘by Jove‘ and ‘jumping Jupiter‘. The phrase ‘egads‘ is, effectively, an appeal to non-Abrahamic deities and violates the strict interpretation of the First Commandment (‘Thou shalt have no other gods before me’) in Judeo-Christian tradition.

     Despite the fact that Jesus was convicted of the charge of blasphemy, Christian theology condemns blasphemy – at least blasphemy which mocks Christian ideas. In Mark 3:29, blaspheming the Holy Spirit is called unforgivable. Blasphemy has been condemned as a serious (sometimes, the most serious) sin by the major creeds and Church theologians. Thomas Aquinas stated that 'it is clear that blasphemy, which is a sin committed directly against God, is more grave than murder'. The Heidelberg Catechism stated that 'no sin is greater or provokes God's wrath more than the blaspheming of His Name'.

Thomas Aquinas

     The persecution of pagans, Jews, Muslims and dissident Christians began in the early middle ages. But it did not emerge on a large-scale until the creation, in the first part of the thirteenth century, of the Inquisition, an organisation set up by the Pope and handed over in 1232 to the Dominican order, who soon became known as ‘Domini canes‘ or ‘the hounds of the Lord‘. 

     The Inquisition became a travelling ecclesiastical court which warned towns of its impending visits and encouraged individual Catholics to denounce all ‘heretical’ Christians or unbelievers. Parents were encouraged to betray their children and children their parents; anonymous denunciations were received with enthusiasm.
     'Heretics’ were arrested and their guilt was assumed. If the victim confessed to holding heretical views then he or she was spared much suffering but when the victim made no confession he was tortured. While the victim endured the pain, the rack or other instrument would be sprinkled with holy water. Overwhelmed by pain and out of his mind with anguish, after a few hours of this torment, the victim would usually give all the information that the Inquisitors wanted to hear.

The Inquisition

     

     But it was the Protestants the groups which had rebelled against the authority of the orthodox church and its inquisition who tended to make new constitutions and new laws in the moulds which had been cast by their persecutors. Instead of transcending the Inquisition they reproduced some of its most repressive features. A times, it was the 'blasphemers' themselves who chased down and eliminated any who opposed their own (new) ideas about God and religion.  

     John Calvin (1509 – 1564) was an influential French theologian during the Protestant Reformation (in effect, a heretical and blasphemous protest against the established Roman Catholic Church). Calvin broke from the Roman Catholic Church around 1530 and, after religious tensions provoked a violent uprising against Protestants in France, Calvin fled to Basel, Switzerland. Calvin found it intolerable ‘when a person is accused of blasphemy, to lay the blame on the ebullition of passion, as if God were to endure the penalty whenever we are provoked’ (meaning, a person has no right to swear or curse).

John Calvin

    In Geneva, Calvin, after some initial signs of leniency, harshly opposed both blasphemy and heresy as soon as he had the power, calling heretics and blasphemers ‘traitors to God’.
     Calvin was directly responsible for at least one blasphemer’s death. Another theologian named Michael Servetus opposed the doctrine of the Trinity (as had Calvin) but he had compounded this crime by openly opposing Calvin as well. Calvin turned around and denounced Servetus to the Catholic Inquisition but with no effective response, Calvin had Servetus arrested and tried for heresy and blasphemy then sentenced to death. Calvin opposed death by burning as being too cruel (perhaps also, too orthodox) and endorsed Servetus’s request that he should be beheaded.
     But the court over-ruled Calvin and Servetus was burned the next day using green wood which burned slowly. After half and hour he passed out and died. Servetus' last words were 'O Jesus, Son of the Eternal God, have pity on me'. This was taken to be proof of his guilt by Calvin and his followers since Servetus had not referred to the 'Eternal Son of God'.

Michael Servetus

     In the Catholic Church, there are specific prayers and devotions as Acts of Reparation for blasphemy such as the prayer entitled The Golden Arrow Holy Face Devotion introduced in 1844 and a number of others included in the Raccolta Catholic prayer-book.    

     Early Christianity itself was the victim of blasphemy. The Alexamenos graffito ( also called the graffito blasfemo) is an inscription carved in plaster on a wall near the Palatine Hill, Rome. It is thought to be one of the earliest known pictorial representations of the crucifixion of Christ.

     The image depicts a human-like figure with the head of a donkey, fixed to a cross. In the top right of the image is a tau cross (see post: Execution by Crucifixion) and on the lft of the image is a young man, apparently intended to represent Alexamenos, a Roman soldier/guard, raising one hand in a gesture suggesting worship.

The Alexamenos Graffito

     In medieval times, under canon law, the Catholic Church meted out punishment for blasphemers by fining and flogging them, piercing their tongues and making them galley slaves.

     In England, the courts justified blasphemy laws on the grounds that Christianity was parcel of the laws of England (the ‘state religion’) and therefore to reproach the Christian religion was to subvert the law.

     Under English common law, in 1656, Yorkshire Quaker James Naylor was convicted of blasphemy then flogged and imprisoned, his tongue pierced with a red-hot poker and his forehead branded with the letter B.

     In England in 1676, an apparently deranged man, who claimed that Jesus Christ was whore-master and that religion was a cheat was taken to trial.
     During the trial, the Lord Chief Justice, Sir Mathew Hale, articulated clearly the principle which had always been implicit in the English concept of blasphemous libel: that Christianity was part of the law of England and that a threat to the Church was, by its very nature, a threat to the state. He said : 'That such kind of wicked and blasphemous words were not only an offence against God and religion but a crime against the laws, States and Government'.

     This judgement expressed an attitude towards blasphemy which would be found throughout seventeenth century Europe, especially in Protestant countries. The laws against blasphemy were not simply restraints on religious freedom but made up an important part of of legislation whose major instrument of suppression was the law against sedition.
     This in effect transferred the aura of sacredness and holy dread, developed around Christianity to the laws of the state and the government which upheld them. Speaking critically or disrespectfully about the government or its officers was construed as a kind of political blasphemy and was punished just as severely as its religious counterpart.

     In Britain, 20-year-old Thomas Aikenhead was executed for the crime of blasphemy in 1697, the last execution in Britain for this ‘misdemeanour’. Aikenhead had denied the veracity of the Old Testament and the legitimacy of Christ’s miracles.

     In 1885, the burning of a Bible led to the last blasphemy prosecution in Ireland before the founding of the Free State. Prosecutions for blasphemy in Ireland effectively ceased when the Church of Ireland was disestablished in 1869.

  
     In 1917, a legal case in Britain of Bowman v Secular Society Ltd alleged that a bequest to the Secular Society Ltd was invalid, as the object of the company involved the denial of Christianity. The House of Lords decided that this object was not unlawful.
     In 1921, a man from Bradford, John Gott was the last person in Britain to be sent to prison for blasphemy when he published pamphlets satirising the Bible. In his publication, Gott compared Jesus to a circus clown. Gott was sentenced to nine months hard labour and of poor health, died shortly after his release.

     Saying no to the gods, with time, became more ‘acceptable’ or, at least, more tolerated. But there was (and still is) the fear among many, that disagreeing with those in power – whether they be politicians or religious figures (or both) – exposes you, perhaps even targets you for the day that dissenters may have to be purged.

      * The History of Blasphemy: subject of research for the novel  The Tao of the Thirteenth God – Amazon Kindle.

The Psychopath

     'Madness without delirium', 'moral insanity' - these are just two of the terms that had been used until the late 1800s to describe the personality without a conscience, the personality with a lack of social responsiveness. The term 'psychopath' was first coined by a German clinician and since then has been used as the description of the criminal with violent, unstable behaviour.

A Psychopath? Not Really.

     The term 'sociopath', first used in the 1930s, is considered by some to be a synonym for psychopath, by others to describe an individual with behaviours which are perhaps less extreme. Today, the same definitions and uses of the terms 'psychopath' and 'psychopathy' are not accepted by all researchers. Most agree that psychopathy is a personality disorder characterized by a pattern of disregard for the feelings of others and often the rules of society.

     The psychopath has a lack of empathy and lack of remorse as well as very shallow emotions. However there is no consensus about the symptom criteria for psychopathy, and no psychiatric or psychological organization has sanctioned a diagnosis of 'psychopathy'. Many researchers do not consider the terms antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) and psychopathy as being synonymous.

     ASPD refers to broad behavioral patterns based on clinical observation, whereas psychopathy assesses character as well as behavior.

A Psychopath?

     The definition of ASPD is so broad that it is estimated that between 50-80% of male inmates qualify as meeting its criteria whereas, Hare estimates that only 11-25% of male inmates meet the criteria for psychopathy.

     To make the understanding of these two terms even more confusing, the current edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR), published in 2000 describes antisocial personality disorder (ASPD), which is characterized by a long-standing history of criminal and often physically aggressive behavior and refers to it as synonymous with psychopathy. Much research, however, shows that measures of psychopathy and ASPD overlap only moderately.

     The characteristics of the psychopathic personality was first described systematically by Medical College of Georgia psychiatrist Hervey M. Cleckley in 1941 who described psychopathy as consisting of a specific set of personality traits and behaviors. According to Cleckley, a psychopath was superficially charming, tending to make a good first impression on others and often striking observers as remarkably normal.

     This disarming presentation hides the reality of the psychopathic individual who is self-centered, dishonest and undependable and will, at times, engage in irresponsible behavior for no apparent reason other than the sheer fun of it.   The psychopath is devoid of guilt, empathy and love and will have only casual and callous interpersonal and romantic relationships. They may offer excuses for their reckless actions blaming others, are often impulsive and rarely learn from their mistakes or benefit from negative feedback.

Hervey M. Cleckley

     With this definition in mind, psychopaths seem overrepresented in prisons, many studies indicating that as many as 25 percent of inmates meet the diagnostic criteria for psychopathy. But other research also suggests that a sizable number of psychopaths may be walking among us in everyday life. There may actually exist 'successful psychopaths', people who attain prominent positions in society, such as politics, business and entertainment. Most psychopaths are male and the 'condition' of psychopathy is present in both Western and non-Western cultures.

     As recently as the mid-1970s, almost 80 percent of convicted felons in the United States were being diagnosed as sociopaths/psychopaths. In 1980, psychologist Robert Hare of the University of British Columbia devised the Hare Psychopathy Checklist (revised five years later and now known as the PCL-R) which has become a standard ratings tool most often used in forensic settings to assess psychopathy, using a forty point scale. Using the PCL-R, one study suggested that 1-2% of the general US population score high enough to be considered potential psychopaths.

Robert Hare

     There is little evidence of a cure or effective treatment for psychopathy. No medications can instill empathy, and psychopaths who undergo traditional talk therapy often simply become more adept at manipulating others and more likely to commit crime.

     According to Dr. Hare, psychopathy stems from as yet unconfirmed 'genetic neurological predispositions and as yet unconfirmed social factors in upbringing'. Although the term 'psychopath' is not officially used in diagnostic manuals (DSM-IV), it is still used by many mental health professionals and by the general public as well as by the press and in fictional portrayals (ex Hannibal Lecter).

     Although psychopathy is associated with and in some cases is defined by conduct problems, criminality or violence, many psychopaths are not violent, and psychopaths are, despite the similar names, rarely psychotic.

University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada

     Unfortunately, the label of 'psychopath' has both political and social implications. By definition, a psychopath is an individual who is likely beyond rehabilitation - today, an accusation which is 'politically incorrect'.

     In the United States,  high PCL-R scores have been used as an argument to support the death-penalty. In the UK, there is debate whether some individuals with personality disorders (such as psychopaths) should be detained even if they haven't committed a crime.

     The Hare Psychopathy Checklist, Revised (PCL-R) is a clinical rating scale consisting of 20 items. Each of the items in the PCL-R is scored on a three-point scale according to specific criteria through file information and an interview of the patient. A value of 0 is assigned if the item does not apply, 1 if it applies somewhat, and 2 if it fully applies.

   

Hannibal Lecter

     These scores are used to predict risk for criminal re-offence and probability of rehabilitation.

     There are similarities or 'cross-overs' with other psychiatric conditions, such as PCL-R Factors 1a and 1b being seen also in narcissistic personality disorder and histrionic personality disorder.

     PCL-R Factors 2a and 2b are strongly correlated to antisocial personality disorder as defined in the DSM-IV.

     The PCL-R was developed primarily as an assessment for convicted criminals. As with any 'interview' device, the quality of ratings may depend on how much background information is available, whether the person being rated is honest as well as the objectivity of the interviewer.

The Hare Psychopathy Checklist, Revised (PCL-R)

Factor 1: Personality 'Aggressive narcissism'

a. Glibness/superficial charm
b. Grandiose sense of self-worth
c. Pathological lying
d. Cunning/manipulative
e. Lack of remorse or guilt
f. Shallow affect (genuine emotion is short-lived and egocentric)
g. Callousness; lack of empathy
h. Failure to accept responsibility for own actions

Factor 2: Case history 'Socially deviant lifestyle'
a. Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom
b. Parasitic lifestyle
c. Poor behavioral control
d. Lack of realistic long-term goals
e. Impulsivity
f. Irresponsibility
g. Juvenile delinquency
h. Early behavior problems
i. Revocation of conditional release

Traits not correlated with either factor
a. Promiscuous sexual behavior
b.Many short-term marital relationships
c. Criminal versatility
d. Acquired behavioural sociopathy/sociological conditioning (Item 21(d): a newly identified trait i.e. a person relying on sociological strategies and tricks to deceive)

     The PCL-R is referred to by some as the 'gold standard' for assessing psychopathy. Thirty out of a maximum score of 40 is recommended as the cut-off for the label of psychopathy (Hare, 2003), although there is little or no scientific support for this as a particular break point.

     In research, a cut-off score of 25 is sometimes used. This threshold varies between jurisdictions as well -  the UK has used a cut-off of 25 rather than the 30 used in the US.

     Other studies attempt to describe 'psychopaths' according to their major characteristics, separating them into 4 groups (primary and secondary first described by Cleckley in 1941):

     Primary psychopaths do not respond to punishment, apprehension, stress, or disapproval. They are able to inhibit their antisocial impulses most of the time, not because of conscience, but 'because it suits their purpose at the time'. Words do not seem to have the same meaning for them as they do for the general population. At times, it seems they are unable to grasp the meaning of their own words ('semantic aphasia'). They don't follow any life plan and are incapable of experiencing any genuine emotion.

Unable to Resist Temptation?

     Secondary psychopaths are risk-takers but are also more likely to be stress-reactive, worriers, and guilt-prone. They expose themselves to more stress than the average person and are as vulnerable to stress as the average person. They are daring, adventurous, unconventional people who began playing by their own rules early in life. They are strongly driven by a desire to escape or avoid pain, but are unable to resist temptation. As their anxiety increases toward some forbidden object, so does their attraction to it. They live their lives by the lure of temptation.

     Both primary and secondary psychopaths can be subdivided into:
     Distempered psychopaths fly into a rage or frenzy more easily and more often than other subtypes. Their frenzy will resemble an epileptic fit.
     They are also usually men with incredibly strong sex drives, capable of astonishing feats of sexual energy, and seemingly obsessed by sexual urges during a large part of their waking lives. Powerful cravings also seem to be in their character, cravings such as drug addiction, kleptomania, pedophilia, any illicit or illegal indulgence. They like the endorphin 'high' of excitement and risk-taking (see post: Your Personal Narcotic).

     Charismatic Psychopaths are charming, attractive liars. They are usually gifted at some talent or another, and they use it to their advantage in manipulating others. They are fast-talkers and possess an almost demonic ability to persuade others out of everything they own, even their lives. Leaders of religious sects or cults (see post: The Reverend Jim Jones) might be psychopaths if they lead their followers to their deaths. This subtype often comes to believe in their own fictions and are irresistible.

     Popular misconceptions surrounding psychopathy persist (possibly due to the condition's depiction in the media):
1. All psychopaths are violent - not true.

Ted Bundy

     Psychopathy is a risk factor for future physical and sexual violence and at least some serial killers—Ted Bundy,John Wayne Gacy and Dennis Rader, the infamous “BTK” (Bind, Torture, Kill) murderer—have manifested numerous psychopathic traits, including superficial charm and a profound absence of guilt and empathy.

     Most psychopaths, however, are not violent, and most violent people are not psychopaths. In the days following the horrific Virginia Tech shootings of April 16, 2007, many newspaper commentators described the killer, Seung-Hui Cho, as 'psychopathic'. Yet Cho exhibited few traits of psychopathy. Those who knew him described him as markedly shy, withdrawn and peculiar.

Seung-Hui Cho

2. All psychopaths are psychotic - not true.

     In contrast to people with psychotic disorders, such as schizophrenia, who often lose contact with reality, Psychopaths are almost always rational in contrast to people with psychotic disorders (ex schizophrenia) who often lose contact with reality.

     The psychopath is well aware that his ill-advised or illegal actions are wrong in the eyes of society but shrug off these concerns. Some serial killers referred to by the media as psychopathic, such as Charles Manson (see post: Death Cults) and David Berkowitz, displayed striking features of psychosis rather than psychopathy.

Charles Manson

     For example, Manson claimed to be the reincarnation of Jesus Christ, and Berkowitz believed he was receiving commands from his neighbor Sam Carr’s dog (hence his adopted nickname 'Son of Sam').

3. Psychopathy is untreatable - not necessarily true.
     Psychopaths are often unmotivated to seek treatment but some studies suggest that psychopaths may benefit as much as non-psychopaths from psychological treatment. Even if the core personality traits of psychopaths are exceedingly difficult to change, their criminal behaviors may prove more amenable to treatment.

David Berkowitz

     Is there a difference between psychopathy and sociopathy? Are psychopaths and sociopaths two different disorders?

     Some literature says that these two conditions are similar yet somewhat different. Some studies place the prevalence of 'sociopathy' at 4% in our society. This compares with a prevalence for anorexic eating disorders of 3.43% (nearly epidemic); schizophrenia occurs in only about 1% of the population; the rate of colon cancer in the United States, considered 'alarmingly high' is about 40 per 100,000 - one hundred times lower than the rate of antisocial personality.

     The high incidence of sociopathy in western (and likely, every) modern society has a profound effect on the rest of us who must live with them or, at least, have them live among us. Most people, however, know nothing about this disorder and, if they do, they think only in terms of violent psychopathy - murderers, serial killers, mass murderers - people who are conspicuous, who break the law and who, if caught, will be imprisoned, perhaps even executed by our legal system.

   
     The following, according to one article, is a comparison of the characteristics of the psychopath and the sociopath.
                                                    Psychopath                                                  Sociopath

Social relationships            unable to maintain normal relationships         appear normal in relationships Tendency to violence                          yes                                                             yes
Behaviour                                        erratic                                                       controlled
Suffers from                        antisocial personality disorder                         antisocial personality disorder
Criminal behaviour             erratic-leave clues and evidence                          well-planned-clues rarely left 

ASPD?

     Psychopaths often live at the fringes of society, are often extremely disorganized and are unable to maintain normal relationships with family, friends or co-workers. 

     Sociopaths, in contrast, can be obsessively organized and normal in their social relationships and caring towards their parents. A sociopath would likely live an outwardly normal life in a regular neighborhood and appear to blend in well with society.

     Psychopaths are often unable to hold down a steady job and house whereas sociopaths often have very successful careers and try to make others like and trust them.

     The sociopath is able to understand human emotions quite well but is unable to experience them. This allows the sociopath to be master manipulators of human emotions.

     Violence by a psychopath is erratic and unplanned and after the erratic act, psychopaths  generally leave behind a large trail of clues. On the other hand, sociopaths may take years to plan acts of violence and revenge, making it difficult to catch them. Each step in the violent act of the sociopath is carefully planned, their crime often undetected.

     Psychiatrists often don't distinguish between psychopaths and sociopaths but rather label a person with antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) with, perhaps the subclassification of 'sociopath' (if their mental condition is a result of mainly social conditions such as abuse during childhood) and 'psychopath' (if the condition is mainly congenital).

     If there are true differences between these two 'conditions' then there certainly are similarities as well.

      According to some therapists, both sociopaths and psychopaths face medical disorders that can be treated or alleviated if properly diagnosed, the treatment involving both psychotherapy as well as proper medication.
     In both situations, signs of the disorder begin to establish and surface at around fifteen years of age. The presenting symptom may be excessive cruelty to animals followed by lack of conscience, remorse or guilt for hurtful actions to others later on stage.

Animal Cruelty

     There may be an intellectual understanding of appropriate social behaviour but no emotional response to the actions of others.

     Psychopaths (perhaps the more severe form of the same disorder?) may also face an inability to form genuine relationships, and may show inappropriate or out of proportion reaction to perceived negligence.

     But why do these people exist? Is their behaviour an illness/a disease? Can this type of murderously depraved behaviour be biologically based?

     There is evidence that problems in brain structure and chemistry do play a part. Most experts agree that there is no neurological 'litmus test' for psychopathy. At King’s College London, scientists claim to have found the strongest evidence yet that psychopaths have abnormalities in key areas of their 'social brains'. The researchers looked at MRI brain scans of 44 male violent offenders (murderers and rapists), 17 fitting the diagnosis for psychopathy.

King's College, London

     The prisoners with psychopathic traits had significantly smaller amounts of grey matter in regions associated with processing 'empathy, moral reasoning and 'self-conscious' emotions, such as guilt and embarrassment'. Other studies have implicated abnormalities in the amygdala (the area associated with aggression), lesions in the orbitofrontal cortex as well as in the white matter connecting the two brain regions.

     Genetics may also play a role. One gene in particular has been implicated (MAO- A), which produces an enzyme that breaks down serotonin, a neurotransmitter which affects mood and can have a calming effect.

The Amygdala-Associated With Aggression

     Named the 'warrior gene', it has been theorized that the calming effects of serotonin may not always be effective in people born with a variant of this gene. Some researchers postulate that the brains of psychopaths may be wired for rewards.

     Brain scans show that people with high levels of 'impulsive antisociality' show greater activity in parts of the brain related to anticipating and expecting rewards. If those rewards don’t come nearly as frequently as expected, the psychopath becomes more aggressive, more frustrated and more alienated toward the world.

     Other studies suggest psychopaths’ brains have an enhanced ability to sense certain emotions — in particular, fear. They seem better able to pick up cues of vulnerability or weakness, making them, in a sense, a natural-born predator.

A Man With the 'Warrior Gene'?

     Certainly in modern times (and probably throughout human history), psychopaths/sociopaths have been tormenting our societies.

     During the Second World War, German Nazi and Japanese military physicians carried out cruel 'experiments and research' on prisoners, documenting their findings in scientific fashion for the purpose of 'discovery' and 'curiosity'.

     At Auschwitz, under the direction of Dr. Eduard Wirths, selected inmates were subjected to various experiments which were supposedly designed to help German military personnel in combat situations, to aid in the recovery of military personnel that had been injured, and to advance the racial ideology backed by the Third Reich.

Auschwitz

     Unit 731 was a biological and chemical warfare research and development unit of the Imperial Japanese Army that undertook lethal human experimentation during the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937–1945) followed by World War II. This 'medical' unit was responsible for some of the most notorious war crimes carried out by Japanese personnel.

     The atrocities committed by the commander Shiro Ishii (see post: Death by Physician) and others under his command in Unit 731 included alive and awake dissection of prisoners (including pregnant women, impregnated by the doctors themselves) and amputation then reattachment of limbs to other parts of the victim's body.

Nazi 'Experiments'

     Some prisoners had parts of their bodies frozen and thawed to study the resulting untreated gangrene. Some victims were used as living test cases for grenades and flame throwers. Others were injected with strains of diseases (disguised as 'vaccinations') to study their effects.
     Male and female prisoners were deliberately infected with syphilis and gonorrhea through rape, then 'study' of their disease carried out.

Unit 731 'Experiments'

     More recent, in 2011 and 2012, are the cases of Canadian Luka Magnotta and Norwegian Anders Breivik.

     Nicknamed the one newspaper as the cannibal killer, Luka Magnotta (not his real name but rather one of several aliases) was said to have been inspired by a Jack the Ripper-style slaughter video game starring Christopher Walken.  

     Walken played a cop named Vince Magnotta in the 1996 game Ripper. Luka, a 29 year old gay porn 'star', adopted the same surname when he changed his name from Eric Newman in 2006. 

Luka Magnotta

     The game starts with emails sent to a newspaper from a serial killer addicted to butchering his victims. Luka Magnotta allegedly murdered his Chinese boyfriend, Jun Lin, with an ice pick in his Montreal apartment then dismembered the body, mailing one foot and one hand to two federal Canadian political parties and the other foot and hand to two private schools in Vancouver. The torso of his victim was discovered in a dumpster near his apartment.

On July 1, 2012, Canada Day (the country's national holiday), a severed head was discovered in a Montreal urban park.

     Magnotta fled Canada and, after an international alert, was arrested in Berlin and returned to Canada.   A few years back, Magnotta posted a video on You-Tube of footage of him carrying out strangulation and suffocation of several kittens.

     Magnotta is awaiting psychiatric assessment and trial but has already submitted a plea of not guilty on murder charges.

Ripper Video Game

     Another modern-day (possible) psychopath is the anti-Islam militant Anders Behring Breivik arrested in Norway for the killing of 77 people on July 22, 2011. 

     Breivik had admitted (with pride) to the bombing of the government’s headquarters in Oslo in  July, killing eight people, before gunning down 69 and injuring a further 242 (all victims mostly teenagers), at a summer camp of the ruling Labour Party.

     He however, denied criminal guilt and subjected the country to a trial during which the court had to rule on both his guilt, and his sanity. Breivik attempted to use the trial as a microphone for his ideology, keeping Europe 'white' and free from Islam.

     The question of guilt was not an issue as he admitted to the murders but it was Breivik's sanity which had been, from the outset, the central question the court was obliged to answer. A number of forensic and prison psychiatrists had told the court that they believed that  Breivik was not psychotic and therefore accountable for his actions.

Anders Behring Breivik

     However two people (the authors of the first psychiatric assessment) disagreed, stating that the man was psychotic at the time of his crimes and that he suffered from paranoid schizophrenia.

     Prosecutor Svein Holden stated that, given there were still doubts about his insanity, Breivik should be placed in psychiatric care and not sent to prison. Breivik himself called psychiatric care 'a fate worse than death'. If convicted of murder as a sane individual, Breivik would face a maximum prison sentence of 21 years under Norwegian law. Commitment to psychiatric care would mean Breivik could be confined for a long time, perhaps for the rest of his life. The legal system in Norway is scheduled to make a decision in July or August 2012.

     These are all cases of murderous individuals in modern times.

     But were the Nazi doctors in the German concentration camps and the Japanese doctors of Unit 731 true psychopaths? Or were these men simply being led along by 'group think' or 'crowd psychology' (see post: The Demagogues-How Do They Do It?). Would they have behaved in a similar way if there had been no war?

     Luka Magnotta certainly seems to fit the criteria for a psychopath. His psychiatric assessment is pending as of June 2012.

Breivik's Fascist Salute at the Start of Court

     Anders Breivik had a well thought out plan but allowed himself to be easily caught. At this point in time, there does not seem to be full agreement as to whether this man is sane or not, whether he is a true psychopath or really psychotic.

     Finally, is there really a difference between a psychopath and a sociopath? Perhaps one is only a more extreme form of the other.

     And are these two disorders (psychopathy and sociopathy) really different presentations of 'antisocial personality disorder' as defined in the DSM-IV?

     More precise definitions may possibly be helpful in treatment for the more extreme cases or may even signal that any attempt at treatment or rehabilitation would be futile.

     But for the population threatened by these individuals, for the victims of their crimes, definition is, more often irrelevant.

   
     For an interesting discussion on the absence of empathy ( a hallmark of the psychopath), click on the link below.  

     Zero Degrees of Empathy  

   
     *Psychopathy and sociopathy: subjects of research for the novel Whip the Dogs - Amazon Kindle;
The Tao of the Thirteenth God - Amazon Kindle.