I get so furious when religious types claim that irreligious or secular people like myself are inherently amoral, and that we have to get our moral voices in society from the ranks of religion. For example:

Fascism is so dangerous precisely because it speaks to its believers in the language of emotion, populism, purity, redemption, and enduring values. Nobody on the progressive side knows how to speak that language — and match that moral force and energy — better than our own native faith groups. Secular progressives may wish it weren’t true, but it is: there’s simply no way we can rebuild a strong democratic system without holding up our end of a broad new culture-wide discussion about morality, meaning, priorities, passion, and values. And those conversations begin most naturally in our houses of worship.

(emphasis mine)

So let me get this straight: secular progressives aren’t fit to confront fascists because we can’t match their rhetoric? Because we can’t have a discussion about morality and meaning and values in society?

Why is that, exactly? Because we don’t have those things?

My response is here

I do love being denigrated because I don’t go to a church. I mean, it’s a daily experience, so I guess I had to get used to it, but it’s *especially* pleasant coming from a fellow ‘progressive’.

Unless you count equal treatment of people regardless of religious belief as a progressive value, of course.

A friend recently recommended I read the critically acclaimed comic series Ex Machina. The only problem would be… it’s about politics.

I’m DROWNING in politics. Daily.

It’s hard to imagine consuming it for fun as well. I think I’ll stick to Action-Science Robots and such for the time being.

We watched Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas on Monday, and I’m still processing it. I’m wondering if someone could apply the Gonzo ideal to practicing law… be a Gonzo lawyer, instead of a Gonzo journalist?

I wonder what that would look like. Elevating the personal, keeping the human context of your work first and forefront, avoiding phony objectivism… is that compatible with the practice of law? After all, the law is a very abstract, rareified, intellectual realm.

Then again, Hunter S. Thomspon covered a lot of stuff in the world of politics and culture, so maybe his books would help with an answer. I should put a couple of them in my Amazon list.