Opium destroys pain but does not cure disease. I think that's all Marx meant about religion. Why is it necessary to try to make such a simple claim something both more than it is and something to speaks to current fears concerning drugs? A conservatizing effect is not the same as festering and rotting. Had he meant the comment as the harsh criticism some would like it to be he would not have chose opium for his metaphor. It was simply too well regarded in his time. As written it was an extremely mild criticism.
John Thornton
andie nachgeborenen wrote:
> So Marx would consider a soporific to be maybe
> "somewhat" positive? Really, Joanna. Obviously he's
> not operating on reefer madness assumptions, but he's
> saying that we can understand why people would turn to
> religion, and that this turn has a bad conservatizing
> effect. The anesthetic effects deadens the pain while
> leaving the cause to fester and suppurate.
>
> --- joanna <123hop at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>> andie nachgeborenen wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Your point?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> His point is that it was considered a soporific, an
>> anodyne.
>>
>> Not entirely positive, but not the evil it has been
>> made into since.
>>
>> Joanna