The Importance of Religion and Family

[Capitalist Lawyer]

ADOLESCENTS' PERCEIVED IMPORTANCE OF RELIGION FOUND TO LESSEN THEIR DRUG USE

Especially When Facing Life Hardships

WASHINGTON - When adolescents perceive religion as important in their lives, it may lower rates of cigarette smoking, heavy drinking and marijuana use, according to a study that tracked urban adolescents from middle school through high school. The researchers from the Albert Einstein College of Medicine found that the perceived importance of religion was particularly important for teens who were facing a lot of life stressors. These findings are reported in the March issue of Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, published by the American Psychological Association (APA).

Those adolescents who viewed religion as a meaningful part of their life and a way to cope with problems were half as likely to use drugs than adolescents who didn't view religion as important. And this held most true while facing hardships, like having an unemployed parent or being sick themselves, according to Thomas Ashby Wills, Ph.D., Alison M. Yaeger, Ph.D., and James M. Sandy, Ph.D. This is known as a "buffering effect," from the concept that something about religiosity serves to buffer the impact of adverse circumstances, said the researchers. The effect of religiosity was not limited by ethnicity, as comparable effects were for adolescents from all of the ethnic groups in the study (African-Americans, Hispanics, and Caucasians).

From a sample of 1,182 adolescents in the metropolitan area who were surveyed on four different occasions from 7th grade through 10th grade, the authors tracked the adolescents' drinking, cigarette smoking, marijuana use and perception of religion through early to late adolescence. This enabled the authors to take into account developmental changes that occur during these ages that might influence drug use. Importance of religion was determined by responses to simple questions such as, "To be able to rely on religious teachings when you have a problem", or "To be able to turn to prayer when you're facing a personal problem". Participants rated each question on a scale from "Not at all important" to "Very important."

"These buffering effects could be occurring," said Dr. Wills, "because religiosity may influence a person's attitudes and values, providing meaning and purpose in life. It could also help persons to view problems in a different way. Besides offering coping techniques, being involved with a religion can also create more healthy social networks than adolescents would have if they got involved with drugs to find social outlets." This research was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

http://www.apa.org/releases/teen_religiosity.html



Northwestern study refutes 'sturm und drang' theory of adolescence



Despite the widely accepted belief that puberty breeds rebellion and emotional turmoil, findings from a Northwestern University study show that adolescents raised in traditional families are more likely to be well-adjusted teenagers and, as adults, have traditional families and continue their good adjustment.

The research also found that teenagers from less traditional families are more likely to have a tumultuous or periodically troubled adolescence and, as adults, to be in less traditional families and to be more poorly adjusted.

Daniel Offer, M.D., professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the Feinberg School of Medicine, and colleagues conducted a longitudinal study that evaluated 67 normal, mentally healthy, suburban male participants initially in 1962, when the boys were 14, and again in 1997, at age 48. Participants were questioned about family relationships, home environment, dating, sexuality, religion, parental discipline and general activities. Ten percent of the families were African-American or Hispanic.
As reported in the December issue of Adolescent and Family Health, the men who had been raised in intact two-parent, middle-class families were more likely to be married, be involved in traditional family relationships, attend religious services and participate in sports or exercise.

Unlike the boys in the "continuous" group, those from the "tumultuous" group were more likely to come from disrupted backgrounds. As adults, they were significantly less likely to be married or involved in traditional family relationships and unlikely to attend church and to exercise.

Results of the study indicate that continuity is an important aspect of development, Offer said.

The teenagers who came from a positive family background had no adolescent turmoil, sailed through adolescence and young adulthood and continued to live a life in harmony with their background.

Those in the "tumultuous" adolescent group also continued to reflect the adjustment of their teenage years, Offer said. The boys in this group had questioned cultural norms and, as adults, were more likely to live outside cultural norms.
"Both groups still hold on to the position they had as adolescents and young adults," Offer said.

Offer also said that results of this study test the psychoanalytic theory that adolescents who appear to be well adjusted as teenagers are "ticking time bombs" who will show significant maladjustment later in life.

Offer and colleagues found no hidden pathology among the "continuous" group. They were normal in adolescence and, 27 years later, were functioning in the same mode.
"We can now question even more deeply the 'sturm und drang' [storm and stress] theory of adolescence," Offer said. His co-researchers on the study were Marjorie Kaiz and David Albert, psychiatry and behavioral sciences, the Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, and Eric Ostrov, Loyola University, Chicago.



http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-nsr120202.php

[McLeft]

Out of mere interest, are a right winger?


Anyway, as for the importance of religion, well I'm not against religion, I believe all humans have a built-in system to believe in something higher and more powerful than the most powerful of all species, humans, thus the desire to believe in the divine, however, religion has come in the way of that belief which all humans have, the ability to understand it for themselves in their own way individually without the need for doctrine, tradition or teaching, in other words religion has manipulated the desire of mankind to believe in the divine and has produced a way to brainwash all of mankind, even me!
As for the importance of a family, well it has been proven by psychologists that children who grow up in a family tend to grow up in a better environment -psychologically, mentally and emotionally- than those who don't, but as for the fundamentalism there exists in uniting two people against their will for the sake of religion, well i condemn that.
People should be morally free to either co-habit or get married if they so wish. As for drug use, well it's influenced by fashion, cultures and modernism, most of the time it's personal desire and addiction that influences it. Of course religion lessens drug use among youngsters because it manipulates them, they feel morally guilty and prisoners of their own belief so they decide not to do it because if they smoke crack they'll go to hell.

On a personal note, I do believe in religion, I was raised as a catholic and i've gone through most of the sacraments but i'm not fully devout, the church has too many flaws and contadictions so instead I believe in the things I consider to be good, for example Jesus is of great inspiration to me..he was the first Socialist. ;)

[Global_Justice]

maybe jesus was the first socialist. but i still don't think he is the son of "god"

[Entrails Konfetti]

And these studies are the cause of people feeling inadequate in dealing with life, only because these studies tell them they are inadequate.

I grew up without a father, and all these social-scientists tell me I'm inadequate because I didn't have the stability of a father in the household. But really how I am supposed to know what that feels like, it's beyond my consciousness. It's impossible for me to know I'm inadequate. My idea of stability is different, as is everyone elses. I feel adequate and thats all that matters.

As for these studies on religion, theres no eternal truth behind them, even if you wish to believe there is, there isn't. It's just really a study of "following the rules vs. not following the rules". Religions are just sets of rules, and some laws are based of off religions morality. But if you ask me I think religion is another type of drug-- it dillutes your consciousness, and fills you with some unfounded ideas of eternal truth and morality.

This whole study is a moral argument, religions morals and morals of those who don't follow a religion. And like I said religions morals are in todays laws, guess who wins this argument "religions morals". It's a bullshit study.

[Comrade-Z]

Those adolescents who viewed religion as a meaningful part of their life and a way to cope with problems were half as likely to use drugs than adolescents who didn't view religion as important.

Umm, religion is a drug--and often an even more destructive drug than any of the ones mentioned. It's like PCP or LSD--people start doing irrational things (like praying, giving time and money away to churches, or volunteering for military service) and believing in things that aren't there.


This is known as a "buffering effect," from the concept that something about religiosity serves to buffer the impact of adverse circumstances, said the researchers.

Which is exactly what people don't need if they are to be successful at improving their lives. This article is inadvertently highlighting the fact that religion is a crippling opiate that dulls the everyday pain and adverse circumstances of class society. How are people going to be motivated to improve their conditions and their society if religion is coaxing them into a sort of dulled "acceptance" of pain and oppression?

Of course, anyone who accepts the dominant paradigm of an era is going to have an easier time achieving social acceptance from his/her peers and authority figures--but until such people start struggling against the dominant paradigm, they aren't going to get anywhere in terms of drastic improvement of life.

For instance, where would blacks be if they had just said, "You know, racism in society is really bothering me, but that's just because there's something wrong with me. I just need to rely more heavily on god, and everything will be alright." True, blacks wouldn't have come into as much overt conflict with their society. They wouldn't have had the hardships of the civil rights movement. They would have been better "adjusted" to their society. But on the other hand, without that struggle, they wouldn't have gotten anywhere in terms of civil rights and improved living conditions.


Despite the widely accepted belief that puberty breeds rebellion and emotional turmoil, findings from a Northwestern University study show that adolescents raised in traditional families are more likely to be well-adjusted teenagers and, as adults, have traditional families and continue their good adjustment.

It all depends on what you mean by "well-adjusted." Being "well-adjusted" to a shitty life is no fun at all! And that's what being "well-adjusted" to a traditional family and social network means, as far as I see it. I don't know. Maybe some people like the taste of shit. But I don't.

Sometimes it is better to be "poorly adjusted" to shitty life situations. At least then there is motivation to rebel and improve one's condition. (Clearly we have differing views on whether or not rebellion is a useful thing or not. I suppose not very useful for the parents who want to keep their kid "in line," but it can be very much in the self-interest of the adolescent.


As reported in the December issue of Adolescent and Family Health, the men who had been raised in intact two-parent, middle-class families were more likely to be married, be involved in traditional family relationships, attend religious services and participate in sports or exercise.

Who wants that?!

Marriage isn't necessarily preferable to not being married. There are pros and cons, depending on individual preferences.

I'm not sure what they mean by "traditional family relationships," but if your family isn't an enjoyable bunch to hang around with, it makes sense not to have much to do with them.

Religious services? I'd rather gouge my eyes out.

Sports and exercise? Mind-numbing, rather useless (if you walk places or ride a bike, exercise is superfluous), and full of ego-battles and stupid one-upmanship, for the most part. Definitely over-rated.


The teenagers who came from a positive family background had no adolescent turmoil, sailed through adolescence and young adulthood and continued to live a life in harmony with their background.

I don't dispute that. That makes perfect sense. But what if your background is shit to begin with?


The boys in this group had questioned cultural norms and, as adults, were more likely to live outside cultural norms.

And why is that bad?

[Hegemonicretribution]

With regards to the family: So what? This study doesn't show that family is superior in any way, but rather than many of the alternatives that we currently have are poor. There is nothing magical about family, it just tends to provide the environment that is conducive to the sort of life these studies encourage more than the alternatives as they exist. It is quite possible to imagine variations on the theme of family, as long as they are economically and socially as supportive, being as good if not better than the family.

As for religion: Well it is the inclusive group idea again, if you feel excluded then you will act on the fringes more and more, if you are included then you will adhere to the norms. Culture reproducing itself, wow that is groundbreaking :rolleyes:

These studies say very little that is not new, and very little that means anything. Why is use of cannabis and tobacco seen as an argument against non-family centric and religious upbringing? It assumes there is a problem with the use of such substances, something I personally do not agree with.

Most of us here view the norm with (at best) distaste.


maybe jesus was the first socialist
:lol:

[synthesis]

So maybe restoring religious traditions and the nuclear family would have beneficial consequences to society as a whole. Agree or disagree, it is impossible to refute that capitalism itself is doing far more to dismantle those institutions than any efforts of the left.

Perhaps you should be taking your concerns to corporations who are incorporating mothers and wives into their operations and having their employees work on Sundays and religious holidays. That's a far more powerful assault on your "values" than a group of people arguing on the Internet.

[LSD]

Originally posted by APA+--> (APA)WASHINGTON - When adolescents perceive religion as important in their lives, it may lower rates of cigarette smoking, heavy drinking and marijuana use[/b]

And that wouldn't be because religions tend to frown on those sorts of activities, would it? :lol:

So basically, this study is proposing that when people "perceive" a set of "moral" guidelines as "important in their lives", they tend to follow them.

Wow, how groundbreaking... :rolleyes:


Originally posted by APA+--> (APA)This is known as a "buffering effect," from the concept that something about religiosity serves to buffer the impact of adverse circumstances, said the researchers.[/b]

Oh, so you mean it acts as a sort of "soothing" agent; it makes hard times easier, and life more bearable.

If only there was a name for that kind of psychoactive agent... oh wait! There is: opiate. :D

hmmm... looks like Marx beat you by about a hundred and fifty years on this one. Oh well, at least you're finally getting around. Who knows, maybe in a few years you'll finally realize just what it is that people need all this "buffering" from.

(hint: it rhymes with smapitalism)


[email protected]
As reported in the December issue of Adolescent and Family Health, the men who had been raised in intact two-parent, middle-class families were more likely to be married, be involved in traditional family relationships, attend religious services and participate in sports or exercise.

And that's supposed to be a good thing!? :blink:

Since when is marriage, religion, or "traditional" anything proven to be a positive or progressive social force?

As far as I see it, all that this "study" proves is that conservative social structures tend to perpetuate themselves which, honestly, is hardly news to anyone who understands basic materialist sociology.

If anything, this "research" is just further evidence of the desperate need to deconstruct "traditional values". The sooner that we eliminate their stultifying effects from society, the sooner we can get on with making changes.


Northwestern
The teenagers who came from a positive family background had no adolescent turmoil, sailed through adolescence and young adulthood and continued to live a life in harmony with their background.

"Harmony with their background"? What the fuck is that even supposed to mean?

Wait, let me guess, they got nice middle-class jobs as bank tellers and stock brokers, vote republican, and hate the fags.

I trust I don't need to explain why that doesn't exactly jive with a revolutionary leftist outlook.

[redstar2000]

http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/5639/oldnews8jc.jpg

CL this is old crap that's been known for a long time.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Tungsten]

Comrade-Z

Umm, religion is a drug--and often an even more destructive drug than any of the ones mentioned.
Religion isn't a drug, it's a mental illness. A few years ago, some professor did a study on the brain patterns of these faith-healer loonies and found that they had many similarities with schizophrenics.
LSD

hmmm... looks like Marx beat you by about a hundred and fifty years on this one. Oh well, at least you're finally getting around. Who knows, maybe in a few years you'll finally realize just what it is that people need all this "buffering" from.

(hint: it rhymes with smapitalism)
If I ask the local drug addicts why they take drugs, will each of their replies rhyme with "smapitalism"? What a (150 year old) pile of horse dung.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

So based on what an un-named, un-sourced prof, somewhere, sometime, might have concluded about the alleged brain patterns of a few faith healers, and how they might compare with those who suffer from an 'illness' which has as yet no clear medical defintion, you feel you can accuse others here of publishing 'horse dung':


A few years ago, some professor did a study on the brain patterns of these faith-healer loonies and found that they had many similarities with schizophrenics.

No wonder you are impressed with Bastiat.

I think I'll stick with 'opiate of the masses', thanks.

[Tungsten]

Rosa Lichtenstein

So based on what an un-named, un-sourced prof, somewhere, sometime, might have concluded about the alleged brain patterns of a few faith healers, and how they might compare with those who suffer from an 'illness' which has as yet no clear medical defintion, you feel you can accuse others here of publishing 'horse dung'
The study wasn't mine, so I can accuse who I please.

No wonder you are impressed with Bastiat.

I think I'll stick with 'opiate of the masses', thanks.
I know you will. That's part of the problem.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 05:53 PM
If I ask the local drug addicts why they take drugs, will each of their replies rhyme with "smapitalism"? What a (150 year old) pile of horse dung.
Normally there will be several reasons, but really this isn't important. This study assumes that there is something wrong with drug use...there isn't.


It's just the truth. If you raise a child with proper Christian values and morals and a love of America, that child will thrive.
Even if they are rased in a third world country with no education and little to no food/water? In fact their religion may seek to make contraception seem undesirable and as a result may end up in having a larger than sustainable family. This isnt "thriving."

[Janus]

As far as I see it, all that this "study" proves is that conservative social structures tend to perpetuate themselves which, honestly, is hardly news to anyone who understands basic materialist sociology.
I agree, these "studies" show nothing. Other studies such as those connecting religion with happiness are just as skewed as any materialist knows. They can't test for these things due to the many confounding variables and the fact that these elements are mutually exclusive. People who go to church are happier to start with so these studies show no sort of connection.

[Guerrilla22]

Actual reality shows that these studies are complete shit and that Capitalist Lawyer is ignorant as hell!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Tungsten:


The study wasn't mine, so I can accuse who I please.

Sure you can, and you can make more stuff up like this too.


I know you will. That's part of the problem.

Just so long as I remain a problem to the likes of you, I reckon I am on the right track.

[Tungsten]

Rosa Lichtenstein

Just so long as I remain a problem to the likes of you, I reckon I am on the right track.
The right track towards lunacy.

[LSD]

Religion isn't a drug, it's a mental illness.

:lol:

It certainly may manifest that way, but I'd say that that's a slight oversimplification of the issue.

More often than not, serious religion is a choice; obviously the same is not true for mental illness. You see, people find something comforting in religion -- nobody finds anything comforting in depression.

Religion is a social reaction to material conditions, not a manifestation in and of itself. Accordingly, I don't think that clinical "treatment" is really the answer here. Instead we need to attack the problem at its societal roots. That means both addressing the inequitable conditions that lead to "beliefs"; and treating people with respect and recognizing that their "faith" is a matter of choice and that it can be changed.


If I ask the local drug addicts why they take drugs, will each of their replies rhyme with "smapitalism"?

That kind of paternalistic moralism assumes that there is something implicitly "wrong" with drug use. On the contrary, using psychoactive substances can be both enjoyable and constructive.

Obviously, altering one's conscioueness can be potentially dangerous; but that is hardly an argument for abstinance.

And in terms of "drug addicts" and "their replies", are you honestly so naive as to believe that all human beings are so inherently perceptive and introspectively aware that they can trace social "ills" back to their roots?

The reality, of course, is that most "drug addicts" have no idea why they do what they do. Their social alienation and desperation is almost certainly a mystery to them; just like how much workers don't understand why it is that in the "greatest nation on earth", they can barely afford their rent.

Human society is not "naturally" or "nescessarily" exploitative, but capitalist society is. Accordingly, until capitalism is finally abolished, or at the very least is exposed for what it is, people are going to keep on looking for "buffers" against the ravages of the "free market".

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Tungsten:


The right track towards lunacy.

I take your advice: being a rightist drives one insane.

Thanks for the warning!

[Janus]

Religion isn't a drug, it's a mental illness.
If only that were true. But even then, people would still go feed this illness by going to worship.


More often than not, serious religion is a choice
Right. Reducing it to a mental illness is similar to reducing homosexuality to one as well.

[McLeft]

funny how we don't get any response or thoughts from the author of this thread. :ph34r:

[Tungsten]

Rosa Lichtenstein
If you don't have anything to contribute to the debate other that personal attacks, then get lost.
LSD

It certainly may manifest that way, but I'd say that that's a slight oversimplification of the issue.

More often than not, serious religion is a choice; obviously the same is not true for mental illness. You see, people find something comforting in religion -- nobody finds anything comforting in depression.
I think people like it because it's the easy way out. Some just like to engage in wishful thinking.

Religion is a social reaction to material conditions, not a manifestation in and of itself. Accordingly, I don't think that clinical "treatment" is really the answer here. Instead we need to attack the problem at its societal roots. That means both addressing the inequitable conditions that lead to "beliefs"; and treating people with respect and recognizing that their "faith" is a matter of choice and that it can be changed.
The societal roots of religion come from kings calling themselves gods and demanding to be treated as such. Material conditions have little to do with it.

That kind of paternalistic moralism assumes that there is something implicitly "wrong" with drug use.
There is something "wrong" with drug use; some of the drugs we're talking about are highly addictive, can fuck you up physically and mentally, or leave you dead. Not wanting to shoot up smack does not make you a paternalist or a moralist.

On the contrary, using psychoactive substances can be both enjoyable and constructive.

Obviously, altering one's conscioueness can be potentially dangerous; but that is hardly an argument for abstinance.
I'm not against people taking drugs, but if altering your consciousness to the point where you jump out of a 10th story window (as some have done, believing they could fly) isn't an argument for abstinance, what is?

And in terms of "drug addicts" and "their replies", are you honestly so naive as to believe that all human beings are so inherently perceptive and introspectively aware that they can trace social "ills" back to their roots?
I don't think so. No one can provide an answer on why every drug user decided to take drugs.

The reality, of course, is that most "drug addicts" have no idea why they do what they do. Their social alienation and desperation is almost certainly a mystery to them;
Who says it's out of desperation and alienation? I know many who take drugs purely for recreation and others who tried it out of peer pressure (one got hooked). I smell conformation bias in the air.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Tungsten:


If you don't have anything to contribute to the debate other tha[n] personal attacks, then get lost.

What's up; have you run out of smart comebacks?

Or, did mine hit home?

Either way, as long as I p*ss you off, I am happy....

[LSD]

The societal roots of religion come from kings calling themselves gods and demanding to be treated as such.

:rolleyes: That is an incredibly idealist approach to history.

You really think that religion, a social force which has, as far as we can tell, existed since civilization began can be entirely traced back to monarchic policy?

The reason that Kings adopted religious iconography was that religion was already a powerful cultural institution. They weren't using their power to invent religion, they were co-opting religious power to secure their own rule!

Remember, religion predates organized society by about a few hundred thousand years. Even Neanderthals have been discovered to have had extensive rituals, as did Homo Sapiens' direct evolutionary forebearers.

Are the specifics of contemporary "faith" largely due to historical accident? Sure. But the generalities are much much deeper.

Religion offers, in your own words, "wishfull thinking"; more "technically", it offers a "buffer" (Capitalsit Lawyer's term) against the alienation and injustice of temporal existance.

People don't "turn to God" because a "King" told them to, they do it because they're desperate and they deeply want to find some sort of "meaning" to their otherwise bleak existance.


There is something "wrong" with drug use; some of the drugs we're talking about are highly addictive, can fuck you up physically and mentally, or leave you dead.

So because a chemical is potentially dangerous, it's benneficial effects should be "discarded"?

Tell me, what&#39;s your opinion on skiing? I take you&#39;re aware that it can be quite dangerous if not done properly. Does that mean that we should outlaw ski slopes aw well? You know, to "protect us from ourselves"? <_<

It&#39;s really quite amazing just how eager "small government" types are to intrude into other people&#39;s lives.

It&#39;s probably the most striking political hypocrisy in the west today; that "conservatives" who rail about "freedom" have absolutely no respect for individual liberty ...I&#39;m honestly shocked that the RNC hasn&#39;t imploded out of the pure weight of it&#39;s bullshit.

You don&#39;t like drugs? Don&#39;t do them. Just leave the rest of us alone.


Not wanting to shoot up smack does not make you a paternalist or a moralist.

No, but telling other people not to does.


No one can provide an answer on why every drug user decided to take drugs.

Absolutely correct, but, again, we are not talking about casual drug use here.

You brought up the issue of drug addiction and people who "screw up their lives" with drug use; an entirely seperate discussion from recreational use.

Remember, the initial poing of this thread was to illustrate how religion can act as a "buffer" for negative experiences and, accordingly, diminishes drug use. The obvious implication being that drugs are an effective "buffer" as well.

Now, is all alienation and desperation because of capitalism? Of course not, but most can indeed be traced back to the structure of contemporary society.

I mean, think about it, we&#39;re talking about a system that is fundamentally predicated on desperate inequality.

How can that not be psychologically corrosive?


Who says it&#39;s out of desperation and alienation? I know many who take drugs purely for recreation and others who tried it out of peer pressure (one got hooked).

There is no doubt that many psychoactive substances are physically addictive, but the psychological addiction that accompanies many drug experiences has far more to do with society than it does "morality", "personal responsiblity", or whatever neocon buzzword you chose to throw around.

[Orange Juche]

Whats wrong with drug use?

I <3 a nice joint now and then.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

I think what&#39;s clear from this and other posts is that you communists aren&#39;t a big fan of your upbringing, your family, or the family in general. You also think anyone who buys into religion is using it as an opiate which prevents them from dealing properly with their own sad lot in life.

I would argue though that the method you seem to be advocating instead is to put your faith in a political system which has a proven track record of failure, meanwhile ignoring the power of capitalism to lift one&#39;s self up.

Simply put: If you are unhappy with your life, America is a great place to change it.

[CubaSocialista]

What this discussion omits is that any family with a philosophical or ethical fiber is likely to avoid problems. Religion doesn&#39;t matter, simply the philosophy and lifestyle. It can be simple Utilitarianism or Secular Humanism, or it can be Orthodox Judaism. It doesn&#39;t matter. There are hardcore Christians who smoke and drink, and there are seculars who never touched anything illegal.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Another one of my replies that gets purposely ignored.

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 28 2006, 01:04 AM
I would argue though that the method you seem to be advocating instead is to put your faith in a political system which has a proven track record of failure, meanwhile ignoring the power of capitalism to lift one&#39;s self up.

So, in America and Western Europe all people have access to proper education, proper health service, clean water and healthy food and there is no such thing as suicide or crime? Your "view" of capitalism is through rose-tinted glasses - you should probably stop watching Fox News and reading all those conservative newspapers - capitalism =/= happiness.

[CubaSocialista]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 1 2006, 02:34 PM
Another one of my replies that gets purposely ignored.
Wait, what part did I ignore?

If I did, I apologize, it would be spiteful for me to purposely ignore a politely proposed argument with an educated basis.

[Dean]

Religions are simply drugs themselves which make your reality a fiction. Godliness bankrupts families morally and economically.

[Dean]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 28 2006, 12:04 AM
I think what&#39;s clear from this and other posts is that you communists aren&#39;t a big fan of your upbringing, your family, or the family in general. You also think anyone who buys into religion is using it as an opiate which prevents them from dealing properly with their own sad lot in life.

I would argue though that the method you seem to be advocating instead is to put your faith in a political system which has a proven track record of failure, meanwhile ignoring the power of capitalism to lift one&#39;s self up.

Simply put: If you are unhappy with your life, America is a great place to change it.
Actually, for me, my family is made up of socialists and communists. My brother is an athiest as well, and episcopalian religion has never been pushed on me since I said I was an athiest.

As for religion being an intentional opiate - I would reference Chomskyin saying that to propagandize well you have to have been propagandized yourself.

Your apparent attack on leftism is stupid. Capitalism has just as bad a track record.

America is becoming less free every month, and was never rated very highly by the UN in this respect. For harder facts,you should note that of the industrialized nations, the US has the least social mobility.