DIFFERENT DRUG PROBLEM

macpatti

The first thing I would like to point out is the incorrect grammar used by the author of that newspaper clipping. They should have said things like "I was dragged to church" not "I was drug to church"

The second thing is that I have to agree wholeheartedly with what a lot of people have said. Just because a person is forced to going to church every week does not automatically guarantee that they will grow up to be a decent adult.

Having proper values installed in them by their parents when they are young is what makes an adult a good person. Some of the worst criminals are regular church goers. One of the most decent, helpful, caring persons that I know has never set foot inside a church once in their life.

I will climb down off this now --->

I doubt the author of this article was clueless to "drugged vs dragged". The wording was used to make a point.

Why so hung up on the religious part in the article? I don't remember seeing anyone say that those who got 'drugged' to church are better people.

Well the overall theme of the article appears to claim that because they were dragged to church every week when they were young makes them a better person. The first reference that the author of it uses is "I was drug to church".

I'm trying to highlight the point that the religious reference in that article was irrelevant to the overall context of it. (The overall context of it being that if proper ethical and moral values are thought to a child they will grow up to be a decent person without having any religion in their life).

By commencing the article with "I was drug to church", straight away it will put a lot of people on the defensive and lead to an argument.

I only saw two sentences in the article regarding church. The rest of the article was about discipline and respect. I do not agree that the" overall theme of the article appears to claim that because they were dragged to church every week when they were young makes them a better person". I'm a person who attends church every week, and did growing up, but that's not what jumped out at me in this article. It's people who want to attack religion/church who got so defensive about the article. That is my point. Attending church every week does not make anyone a better person. All of the other things in the article can help form children into responsible members of society. In the author's opinion, church was included in those measures.

Drunkadelic

yeah because my parent dragging me to church every week and doing all those others things sure kept me off drugs:laugh:

haha yeaaa pretty much

maab_connor

The first thing I would like to point out is the incorrect grammar used by the author of that newspaper clipping. They should have said things like "I was dragged to church" not "I was drug to church"

The second thing is that I have to agree wholeheartedly with what a lot of people have said. Just because a person is forced to going to church every week does not automatically guarantee that they will grow up to be a decent adult.

Having proper values installed in them by their parents when they are young is what makes an adult a good person. Some of the worst criminals are regular church goers. One of the most decent, helpful, caring persons that I know has never set foot inside a church once in their life.

I will climb down off this now --->

I doubt the author of this article was clueless to "drugged vs dragged". The wording was used to make a point.

Why so hung up on the religious part in the article? I don't remember seeing anyone say that those who got 'drugged' to church are better people.

Well the overall theme of the article appears to claim that because they were dragged to church every week when they were young makes them a better person. The first reference that the author of it uses is "I was drug to church".

I'm trying to highlight the point that the religious reference in that article was irrelevant to the overall context of it. (The overall context of it being that if proper ethical and moral values are thought to a child they will grow up to be a decent person without having any religion in their life).

By commencing the article with "I was drug to church", straight away it will put a lot of people on the defensive and lead to an argument.

I only saw two sentences in the article regarding church. The rest of the article was about discipline and respect. I do not agree that the" overall theme of the article appears to claim that because they were dragged to church every week when they were young makes them a better person". I'm a person who attends church every week, and did growing up, but that's not what jumped out at me in this article. It's people who want to attack religion/church who got so defensive about the article. That is my point. Attending church every week does not make anyone a better person. All of the other things in the article can help form children into responsible members of society. In the author's opinion, church was included in those measures.

i still disagree with the article. my parents were awesome, they instilled one heck of a work ethic in me - so much of one that i was working a full time job and on the honor roll all through HS ... and an active addict through the whole thing too.

ppl turn to drugs/alcohol/sex/escapism of the week b/c of something that they can't handle.

i'm not saying that it's never exascerbated by the homelife/early childhood of an addict, but that's too simple of an answer for a very complex situation. This is like saying you can punish the ADD out of someone - it doesn't work that way, it's a problem in the wiring of the brain.

mommared53

The first thing I would like to point out is the incorrect grammar used by the author of that newspaper clipping. They should have said things like "I was dragged to church" not "I was drug to church"

The second thing is that I have to agree wholeheartedly with what a lot of people have said. Just because a person is forced to going to church every week does not automatically guarantee that they will grow up to be a decent adult.

Having proper values installed in them by their parents when they are young is what makes an adult a good person. Some of the worst criminals are regular church goers. One of the most decent, helpful, caring persons that I know has never set foot inside a church once in their life.

I will climb down off this now --->

I doubt the author of this article was clueless to "drugged vs dragged". The wording was used to make a point.

Why so hung up on the religious part in the article? I don't remember seeing anyone say that those who got 'drugged' to church are better people.

Well the overall theme of the article appears to claim that because they were dragged to church every week when they were young makes them a better person. The first reference that the author of it uses is "I was drug to church".

I'm trying to highlight the point that the religious reference in that article was irrelevant to the overall context of it. (The overall context of it being that if proper ethical and moral values are thought to a child they will grow up to be a decent person without having any religion in their life).

By commencing the article with "I was drug to church", straight away it will put a lot of people on the defensive and lead to an argument.

I only saw two sentences in the article regarding church. The rest of the article was about discipline and respect. I do not agree that the" overall theme of the article appears to claim that because they were dragged to church every week when they were young makes them a better person". I'm a person who attends church every week, and did growing up, but that's not what jumped out at me in this article. It's people who want to attack religion/church who got so defensive about the article. That is my point. Attending church every week does not make anyone a better person. All of the other things in the article can help form children into responsible members of society. In the author's opinion, church was included in those measures.

Yeah, maybe the author should have put being drug to church last. Doubt it would have made any difference to some people though. I'm just glad my mom did all that "drug" in all those situations. I just wish she was still alive so I could tell her.

Thomasm198

I only saw two sentences in the article regarding church. The rest of the article was about discipline and respect. I do not agree that the" overall theme of the article appears to claim that because they were dragged to church every week when they were young makes them a better person". I'm a person who attends church every week, and did growing up, but that's not what jumped out at me in this article. It's people who want to attack religion/church who got so defensive about the article. That is my point. Attending church every week does not make anyone a better person. All of the other things in the article can help form children into responsible members of society. In the author's opinion, church was included in those measures.

Yes. The first two sentences referred to church. But that straight away will stop a lot of people reading it and put them on the defensive.

I can guarantee you that if those two sentences were either (a) put at the end of the article or (b) not included in it at all; there would be less disagreement about the article.

And Macpatti, just in case you think I am a person that attacks religion; I'm not. I'm Catholic, I go to Mass on a regular basis, I'm a Minister of the Eucharist, I'm a "reader" (I read out the readings, the responsorial psalm and the Gospel acclamation).

What I am doing, is sticking up for friends that have commented unfavourably on that article, by pointing out that the reference to church in it is what causes people to go on the defensive. Not everybody likes to be told that church and religion is the answer to everything.

mommared53

I honestly didn't realize the article was going to be so controversial when I posted it. I just thought it was a cute article. :laugh: My sister posted it on Facebook.

FearAnLoathing

The first thing I would like to point out is the incorrect grammar used by the author of that newspaper clipping. They should have said things like "I was dragged to church" not "I was drug to church"

The second thing is that I have to agree wholeheartedly with what a lot of people have said. Just because a person is forced to going to church every week does not automatically guarantee that they will grow up to be a decent adult.

Having proper values installed in them by their parents when they are young is what makes an adult a good person. Some of the worst criminals are regular church goers. One of the most decent, helpful, caring persons that I know has never set foot inside a church once in their life.

I will climb down off this now --->

I doubt the author of this article was clueless to "drugged vs dragged". The wording was used to make a point.

Why so hung up on the religious part in the article? I don't remember seeing anyone say that those who got 'drugged' to church are better people.

Well the overall theme of the article appears to claim that because they were dragged to church every week when they were young makes them a better person. The first reference that the author of it uses is "I was drug to church".

I'm trying to highlight the point that the religious reference in that article was irrelevant to the overall context of it. (The overall context of it being that if proper ethical and moral values are thought to a child they will grow up to be a decent person without having any religion in their life).

By commencing the article with "I was drug to church", straight away it will put a lot of people on the defensive and lead to an argument.

I only saw two sentences in the article regarding church. The rest of the article was about discipline and respect. I do not agree that the" overall theme of the article appears to claim that because they were dragged to church every week when they were young makes them a better person". I'm a person who attends church every week, and did growing up, but that's not what jumped out at me in this article. It's people who want to attack religion/church who got so defensive about the article. That is my point. Attending church every week does not make anyone a better person. All of the other things in the article can help form children into responsible members of society. In the author's opinion, church was included in those measures.

Yeah, maybe the author should have put being drug to church last. Doubt it would have made any difference to some people though. I'm just glad my mom did all that "drug" in all those situations. I just wish she was still alive so I could tell her.

My parents did all the same,maybe I was just bad.Or highly resentfull for them not accepting the fact that at 7 years old I stoped believing in god.

mommared53

That's okay. He still believes in you.

macpatti

I only saw two sentences in the article regarding church. The rest of the article was about discipline and respect. I do not agree that the" overall theme of the article appears to claim that because they were dragged to church every week when they were young makes them a better person". I'm a person who attends church every week, and did growing up, but that's not what jumped out at me in this article. It's people who want to attack religion/church who got so defensive about the article. That is my point. Attending church every week does not make anyone a better person. All of the other things in the article can help form children into responsible members of society. In the author's opinion, church was included in those measures.

Yes. The first two sentences referred to church. But that straight away will stop a lot of people reading it and put them on the defensive.

I can guarantee you that if those two sentences were either (a) put at the end of the article or (b) not included in it at all; there would be less disagreement about the article.

And Macpatti, just in case you think I am a person that attacks religion; I'm not. I'm Catholic, I go to Mass on a regular basis, I'm a Minister of the Eucharist, I'm a "reader" (I read out the readings, the responsorial psalm and the Gospel acclamation).

What I am doing, is sticking up for friends that have commented unfavourably on that article, by pointing out that the reference to church in it is what causes people to go on the defensive. Not everybody likes to be told that church and religion is the answer to everything.

I understand that any mention of religion will offend people. However, the main point of this article, IMO, was not religion. That's all that some people got out of it, though. I never tell anyone that church and religion is the answer to everything. I don't believe that myself.

AnninStPaul

The passage is a lot less about church than about families doing constructive activities together and people doing things to help and support each other, with no expectation of payment.

Steven

Dear Posters,

I wanted to offer a brief explanation for the locking of this thread, as well as offer a preview of some changes that will be debuted VERY soon at MyFitnessPal. These changes are being made with the express purpose of allowing more leeway in terms of what users can freely post on the site.

The forum guidelines include this item:

13) Topics about politics, religion, atheism, or sexuality are not allowed and will be deleted. This includes posting images or signatures. Unfortunately, we have seen that topics about either of these subjects are highly likely to result in heated arguments and disputes. If you really wish to discuss any of these topics, please google political forums, religious forums, etc. - there are plenty of other places to express your views.

In the past, with only a small crew of volunteer moderators to help keep the dialogue on the site positive and supportive, Mike has reluctantly had to create a rule which disallows any posts about these potentially divisive topics. Mike would greatly prefer to allow all of these topics to be discussed on the site, but so far, we haven’t had the resources to moderate such topics in a manageable fashion. Often the tone of the original thread is harmless, but as the threads proceed, members participating in such topics have been subject to insults or attacks, feelings have gotten hurt, and in more instances than we would like, a moderator wasn’t able to step in quickly enough to prevent this from happening.

To help the situation and with the purpose of really letting conversation on the site blossom, two things are being done: the team has trained more moderators, and the site will soon feature a new “Groups” feature.

With Groups, Members will be able to form their own groups and invite other members to join. Each group would have it’s own forum, and group forums would have much more leeway in the range of topics discussed. So, for example, you’ll absolutely be able to create a faith-based, or politically leaning support group and discuss the exact range of topics you’d like to discuss. Groups will be able to host a much more diverse and mature range of conversations, and because groups will be able to moderate themselves, we hope they’ll be much better at protecting some of our more targeted populations from unwanted hassle. We plan to heavily promote the existence of groups to all of our members, fostering strong participation and hopefully giving you exactly the community experience you are looking for on our site.

In the meantime, we appreciate your understanding. We’re committed to making MyFitnessPal a place where all members can communicate openly in a supportive, and positive environment that helps them to achieve their weight-loss and fitness goals.

If you would like to review the forum guidelines, please visit the following link:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/14923-forum-rules-please-read-before-posting

At our discretion, this locked thread may be deleted entirely in the near future.

With respect,
Steven
MyFitnessPal Staff