Escapism is a
huge part of the appeal - and even of the success in the demographic sense - of many religions. It is not generally speaking healthy, though. Some faiths are essentially social diseases, akin to chemical addiction even.
Some religions have little to offer beyond escapism. Others avoid it, with varying degrees of emphasis and success.
BONUS QUESTION: If someone were using his or her religion as an escape from reality -- that is, from their circumstances -- then do you think they would be more or less open-minded about the meaning and importance of their religion's scriptures or teachings? Or would it make any difference at all?
Like so much else, it varies mainly due to whether the person or group feels a craving for more stability or instead for more freedom of expression.
The point of some religious groups and individual practices is to hide behind their scriptures and teachings, and therefore they will always feel threatened by questioning. But that has a way of backfiring on occasion; people can have the most marvelous of epiphanies when they are too involved with what they ultimately feel to be wrong.
Other escapist faiths, however, are of the "free form" variety, sometimes to the point of mocking coerence and rationality themselves. They go to the other extreme entirely, being completely maleable and arguably being little more than a label of convenience for people who will simply do as they want and create justifications after the choice.
