Of all the places where such a comment could have the most effect, either stirring debate or eliciting adulation, a post made on an obscure blog almost six months ago dealing with the hackneyed politicizing of a single episode of a television series is perhaps the worst. At least you can take solace in the fact that you wasted precious little time or energy on the content of the comment. However I have nothing better to do at the moment, so...

I never said that government was de facto beneficent. I never explicitly defended Obama or his policies. I addressed the striking similarities between the clumsy political allegory of the episode with the clumsy political narrative of the "tea party" style pundits. Nothing you have said seems to have anything to do with what I wrote.

If you want to get into a debate about whether America today is analogous to revolutionary Russia or the Fascists power, or whether the state is necessarily a hindrance then there are better places for that, better people.

Thanks for stopping by.

But is atheist blogging a religion?

It has a central tenent, the disbelief or unbelief in a deity, that must be held to be considered one of them. It has texts that are almost universally lauded and defended, which is more than you can say for indigenous religions. It has leaders, just look at who gets the most hits and starts the most memes.

It even has rituals, very specific rituals, like writing the "atheism is not a religion" post, or the "pagan christmas" post for the holidays. There's the "god of the bible is evil" post that every young man must undergo at a certain age. And let's not forget the "you can be good without god" post each member of the congregation is called upon to undergo.

Of course atheist blogging fails the only useful criteria for being considered a religion, the belief and worship of a deity. So maybe not.

The above comment is for entertainment purposes only, please don't excommunicate me.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for the well wishes.

Every time I start to work on the novel I keep getting ideas for future blog posts. So hopefully I'll have enough raw material to make up for the missed blogging.

Alternate Quote:

"Politics, as a practice, whatever its professions, has always been the systematic organization of hatreds."
--Henry Adams

I think the reason there is some contention over your subject matter is that the site appears to be a site dealing with atheism as it's only topic. This is not to say that you actively advertise it as such but it initially comes across that way. Other sites that bill themselves as atheism only sites do not venture into politics save where it intersects with religious issues. So I can see how some might feel that a site that appears to be about atheism deviating into subjects that have no direct connection might make those who disagree with your viewpoint feel excluded. Or perhaps they enjoy your writings on secularism and atheism but find your political writings unpalatable and so are trying to encourage you to separate the two.

As for myself, I say that specialist blogs are overrated. If I enjoy the writing and thought process of a blogger I want to know their opinion on everything.

With a combination of a vocal and monied minority pushing the country farther right and a global economic crisis there is some cause for concern about America's political future.

But I am a hopeless optimist. I have to be to stay sane.

In recent history America has seen the pendulum swing many times and lived through many economic busts with the status quo more or less intact. Never underestimate how tightly the majority is willing to hold on to the present regardless of how much they might want things to change. It certainly continues to amaze me.

So perhaps the political apathy that holds us back from making drastic changes for the better will save us from drastically changing for the worse.

Sorry for the armchair quarter-backing but wouldn't you have been able to fight trolls by banning anonymous commenting but allowing facebook and twitter login?

The trackback has not kicked in yet so I wanted to let everyone know that this post was featured in the recent Humanist Symposium over at The Greenbelt.

I'm perpetually shocked at the attention and even adoration that Molyneux receives. He's abrasive, overbearing, and condescending. Yet somehow he has a disturbingly close and loyal following. Then again, look at Ayn Rand.

I probably should add a disclaimer to my personal and ideological distaste for the man by saying that I've only dug through a portion of his prodigious (or perhaps "incessant" is the better word) output of video, audio, and text.

As far as protection from the government goes I am also skeptical of the ability to legal gun ownership to fend off tyranny but give the extensive ownership of military grade weapons (take a look at some of the things on display at gun shows), the likely tactics acceptable in a civil war with combatants mixed in with civilian population, and the American military's past problems with small armed resistance groups (from the Vietcong to the Taliban) I think the argument is not wholly absurd.