“In the process of meeting the familial, educational, economic, and political needs of society, some individuals thrive whereas others suffer.  Hence all societies also face the problem of providing their less successful members with a sense of purpose and meaning in their lives.  Religion gives individuals a belief system for understanding their existence as well as a network of personal support in times of need.” (David M. Newman, Sociology)

This is in my sociology textbook.

What is this? Is the author seriously stating that religion is for “less successful members” of society?  For individuals who don’t “thrive”, but rather “suffer”?  That those who “successfully meet the needs of society” do not need religion because they have a sense of purpse and meaning in their lives?  That religion is for babies who need a crutch to feel like they matter?

Bogus!  “Successful” members of society have no more sense of a deep purpose or meaning in their lives than those who struggle to get by.  And religion, in its true sense, was not created as a crutch - it was created to find a deeper purpose in life than just being materially successful.  We were created for more than just the attainment of external success, and the emptiness people feel is not a result of not having enough money, or not being successful according to society.  It’s a result of living in a world too focused on external success and not enough on the heart.

It just makes me so sad to read this.  I’m not “churchy,” and I’m aware that religion these days is often so, so corrupt and yes, a crutch for wimps.  Heck, I generally don’t even like religion, and I believe almost all or at least the worst problems in the world arise from narrow-minded, arrogant church leaders who think their religion is best and every other religion is low crap.  But to claim that all religion is is a comfort for suffering failures?  And in a college textbook?  It’s so low.  It’s almost more awful than teaching evolution.