-7 votes

When God Is Not Enough: Religious States Have Highest Rates of Anti-Depressant Use

They say that religion is the opiate of the masses, but it seems that the opiates of the religious are antidepressants.

A study released yesterday confirmed that Mississippi remains the most religious state in the Union, followed by a handful of its southern belt brothers: Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, as well as the Mormon stronghold of Utah. The Gallup poll showed that 58 percent of all Mississippians identify as “very religious.” The least religious states in the U.S. are the former stomping grounds of the very, very religious Puritans: Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, Maine and New Hampshire.

But life in these highly faithful states doesn’t seem to be all its cracked up to be. The most religious states in the U.S. share another trait: the highest use of anti-depressants.


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Sorry but

Alternet is a culture Bolshevik garbage site that censors if you sneeze at the wrong time.

Luke 3:38
Isaiah 43:3-5

doesn't mean religion is the sole problem.. lol

i laugh when some people push atheism over liberty as the solution to most problems in the world

Religion -

is the oldest form of authoritarian control. Not that I don't believe in a creator, I just know for sure that it, he, her or whomever has zero to do with Christianity, Buddhism, Islam or any of these other man-made contrived controls. You can read a little of each of these religions and see clearly that they are nothing more than plagiarisms of each other and much older religions. I don't need some book written by some men to influence my respect for a creator nor do I need one to teach me right from wrong. I don't think any mainstream religion is healthy for rational thought processes. Look at the land they have been fighting over for centuries, for what? This land is nothing more than desert with some scrub grass and rocks - worthless! Ah, but it's holy land... WTF ever keep believing that non-sense and see how far that will get you. Btw I've never subscribed to one of these religions and I have never needed any drugs nor have I been attacked by the devil. The only devil resides in the minds of men.

The bold effort the present bank had made to control the government ... are but premonitions of the fate that await the American people should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like it-Andrew Jackson

That's PROOF of Spiritual Warfare

I am a Christian and suffered from panic attacks and anxiety. They had me on meds. I learned that it was spiritual. Demons attack real Christians. There is a spiritual war going on. This only proves that the people of God get attacked by the devil.

The problem is the lukewarm leadership in America. Christians don't know they are fighting spirits of fear and torment and the world tells them to take meds. I once learned that 50% of people in the insane asylums think they've committed an unforgivable sin. (I used to believe that lie too, until I looked at the promises in the Bible.) It's time for Christians to come off the meds and declare the promises of God. It's time to trust God and ignore the lies of the enemy and the lies of the world.

Here are my latest videos about this:

“I don't think we should go to the moon. I think we maybe should send some politicians up there.” -Ron Paul

█████ R █ O █ N ██ P █ A █ U █ L ███ 2 0 1 2 ██████

Reality and facts

cannot persuade folks who still believe in miracles and torturing Libertarian children in hell (those who died from flu without embracing the Lord.)

When the rational mind is reduced to a slavish role of rationalizing accepted dogma, one feels small. Only peer pressure, humility, warm fuzzy feeling, anti-depressants and angelic smile of a retard quality they dress their faces with keep them firm.

A Factor is Missing Here: Off-label use of antidepressants

My mother in law was perscribed an antidepressent (low dose) for fibromyalgia. She is a deeply religious person and also had trust in her doctor. After realizing that it was the aspartame causing her fibromyagia, she is much better in that department. She also was perscribed an antidepressant for a foot neuropathy, which she didn't take long for the side effects.

The issue here is not faith in God, but a blind faith in doctors that is undeserved. They'll put you on an antidepressant for just about anything now and then do a snow job telling you that it won't affect your mental state in the least.

I'd say the people in the states you mention are more trusting types.

Probably too much irony here but --

Ecclesiastes 1:18
For in much wisdom [is] much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

Freedom is not: doing everything you want to.
Freedom is: not having to do what you don't want to do.
~ Joyce Meyer


Not ironic at all.

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.
Friedrich Nietzsche

Why not look for the most depressed states

then search for ways people respond? Many a person has said it took them hitting bottom before they sought help and for many that may be opening the church door or opening the Bible. IOW, I don't necessarily agree that religiosity is causative. You could as easily claim that an abundance of trauma centers cause life-threatening injuries when they are more likely a reaction to the higher accident rate within a region.

New Hampshire and Ecuador.

Faith is the great cop-out,

Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.

-Richard Dawkins

The religion known as "Darwinism" is faith based

I consider Darwinism a religion because of the "missing link" between man and apes. Given this missing link, Darwinists must rely on faith to support their religious views.

Even Albert Einstein believed in a Creator/God. Personally, I believe it's more rational to beleive humans were created by God than to believe humans evolved from apes.

The founders believed humans are endowed by the Creator with immutable unalienable rights, and this belief is based on self evident truths. Tyrants prefer the Darwinist religion because it precludes the concept of unalienable rights and rationalizes brutal oppression.

For more on these ideas, check out the section "Constitutional Principles" in the pdf file titled "Knowledge is Power". Here's the link:


http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

Humans evolving from apes is

Humans evolving from apes is a straw man argument against evolution. Evolution can be more simply summed up that organisms are naturally selected for based on its abililty to adapt to the environment it's placed in.

How else would one explain Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)? http://youtu.be/yJpi8SnFXHs

Organisms can adapt

I've been involved in agriculture most of my life so I understand the ability of plants and insects to adapt and become resistant to herbicides and insecticides. This is similar to bacteria developing a resistance to antibiotics, but this adaptation doesn't result in a different species and a missing link between the species.

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

how about this example?

Gray Tree Frog (hyla versicolor) and Cope's Gray Tree Frog (hyla chrysoscelis).

They look identical but h. chrysoscelis has 24 chromosomes and h. versicolor has 48 chromosomes. H. versicolor evolved when two tetraploid h. chrysoscelis individuals met and bred. The two species have different calls and that is the only way for a layman to tell them apart. They do not interbreed, obviously.

"It may be a hundred years before a computer beats humans at Go - maybe even longer. If a reasonably intelligent person learned to play Go, in a few months he could beat all existing computer programs." - Piet Hut

"Missing link" is a red herring

Again, I would caution against being distracted by the "missing link" idea. It's a red herring. The adaptations that you speak of, over many many years, can lead to different species. Species that were initially the same, may split into different species if their selected adaptations are different enough.

The important question to ponder is the ability to adapt. What conditions can cause a single cell organism to become a multi-cell organism of varying complexities?

My point is, Darwinism is a faith based religion

You believe, but can't prove, that adaptations can lead to different species. Likewise, science has been unable to prove that humans evolved from apes. I have no problem with your personal belief, but the gov't violates the individual's right to freedom of religion when it uses public schools to force their religion (Darwinism) on citizens.


http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

Well, technically it's not

Well, technically it's not religion because scientific hypotheses are falsifiable. Adaptation and natural selection hasn't been falsified, yet, as you yourself have claimed observed. And, the concept of a "missing link" doesn't falsify the concept of adaptation and natural selection. So, it's not necessary to take ideas on evolution on faith. One is certainly free to ignore one's own observations, but at least you're not claiming to be a man of science.

Secondly, what you're really arguing against are public schools. And, that is indeed a good thing to argue against. Parents should be free to stifle their kids' imaginations in the best way they see fit.

Technically, you're entitled to your opinion

The premise of Darwinism is that all living things evolved from a single organism. But this is just a supposition. So you're taking a giant leap of faith when you hypothesize that an organism's ability to adapt proves that all life evolved from a single organism. And yet, public schools teach this hypothesis as if it were fact. I want children to learn critical thinking skills, not imaginary suppositions masquerading as science. Your lack of objectivity is stifling your imagination.


http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

Not a single organism, but

Not a single organism, but more likely single cell organisms. Is that any harder to believe and ponder about than the human race are decendents of only Adam and Eve? I mean, which one is a bigger leap of faith? Again, you yourself admitted to having observed adaptations in nature. If bacteria can adapt and become resistant to antibiotics, and plants can become resistant to herbicides, no faith required. Emprical observations. Fascinating stuff.

You've asked the right question, i.e., ...

Is is harder to believe that all life evolved from single cell organisms than to believe humans were created by God? I think both belief systems require equal amounts of faith. The difference is, I'm willing to admit my beliefs are faith based and you (and public schools) try to equate your belief system with empiricism. Your denial of reality does me no harm, but great harm is done when tyrants use the power of the State to force their Darwinian religion on society. Why? Social Darwinism has absolutely no regard for the weak and less fortunate among us. In the animal world, theft, assault, rape, murder, etc. are natural and unregulated. Throughout history tyrants have practiced this animalistic, Darwinian code of conduct and it's still happening today. That's why I believe Darwinism is a sophisticated, intellectual, Machiavellian attempt to rationalize the brutal oppression of despotic leaders.


http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

What does "social darwinism"

What does "social darwinism" have anything to do with natural selection? Who brought up that strawman? Hobbes didn't look far back enough...


"Anthropology offers a reminder of the availability of examples of stateless living as an antidote to those who insist, pace Aristotle and Hobbes, that we cannot envisage a commodious existence without the polis or the state. It reminds us of the availability of specific examples and case studies of campaigns to resist conquest as state territorialisation."

Thanks for making my point

Darwinism/natural selection is used to promote anarchy, i.e., a stateless, lawless society. If you want to live in an animalistic Hobbsian nightmare, you're free to adovcate for that. There's a lot of lawless darwinian socialists on Wall Street who share your world view, but in the end, their religion of corruption will cannibalize itself.

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

You're good at conflating a

You're good at conflating a lot of concepts. But, that's to be expected from someone who rejects his own empirical observation of natural selection.


I'm conflating?

You're the one trying to equate empirical facts supporting adaptation with the supposition that all living things evolved from single cell organisms. I would compare your task to that of Sisyphus, the mythological Greek king who tricked Death, and as a result, his punishment was to roll a huge rock to the top of a hill, but each time he neared the top, the rock would roll back down. Fortunately, you can stop rolling your rock, if you so choose.

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

as much as I enjoy this

as much as I enjoy this debate... Einstein was a devout socialist and numbers economist. (sorry nothing to do with the conversation, I just dont like Einstein lol)

What do u quote this A-hat for

What do you believe in ..Faith in Richard Dawkins?, where does life come from .. Even Dawkins admits he thinks it is Aliens .. No one has seen Aliens .. but he has Faith in them

So YOU are the great COP-OUT

Not defending Dawkins, but

Not defending Dawkins, but some simpler organism are able to survive the environmental extremes of space: http://youtu.be/SUC0_HjNFBs

wow that's quite a stretch! also, can you back up your claims?

In christ, Thanks

I will find it

He let it slip when someone was questioning scientific proof for life from non-life .. and since he had no freakin answer as there is NO scientific proof he slipped, well actually told what he REALLY believes in.

in Athesim, thanks