To Blog or not to Blog?

Sadly, no less than three of my favorite blogs have vanished in the course of the last month or so - their authors later explaining that they removed them because of privacy issues. Either people they knew - or, more worryingly, people they didn't - made comments or personal inquiries that left our bloggers deeply uncomfortable.

It's an issue that my wife and I have discussed recently and a little tête à tête between us nearly resulted in me shutting down my blog in frustration (I didn't like the idea of having to run every post past an unofficial censor before publishing.)

But the worrying thing is - Wifey had a point. Successful blogging means exposing yourself to every friend, acquaintance, stranger and nutjob on the Internet. Who knows what the result of that could be?

Many bloggers choose to blog anonymously - which gives them the delicious freedom to write about whatever they want. This is how bloggers like 'Belle Du Jour' and 'Girl with a One Track Mind' got started - writing about their steamy sex lives. However, anonymous blogging carries it's own dangers (as two of my deleted blogging pals discovered) when their real life friends and family discover their 'anonymous' blog and wind up with intimate and uncensored access to their most private (though public) thoughts.

Other bloggers, such as myself, choose to blog absolutely openly. This is great as it gives a way for friends and family to keep up to date with your adventures (or lack of them) and is perfect for an aspiring writer like myself, since blogging is self-publicity at it's most affordable.

The problem with a non-anonymous blog? Well, for a start you sometimes have to censor yourself. I don't write about particularly seedy topics, but I am well aware that whatever I write will eventually be read by my father.

Secondly - you can't hide from a blog. Once you've written something, it's out on Internet forever and there have been all sorts of stories about bloggers loosing their jobs after bitching about work on their blog - or losing out on employment when a 'google' search by a prospective employer brings up a blog filled with drunken debauchery.

If you're not blogging anonymously, you have to take ownership of everything you write and be prepared for anybody - absolutely anybody - to read it.

But most worryingly of all about a non-anonymous blog: How much of your personal information is available for everybody to see (and steal?)

This is what worried my wife, especially after the birth of our son. The blog of aspiring novelist Roland Hulme contained our names, a rough geological location, pictures of our friends and family and even personal information (e.g. a birthdate, gleaned from a 'happy birthday to me' post written on my birthday.)

Is it enough for somebody to steal my identity? Not by a long shot - and they'd have to wade through pages and pages of diatribes about religion and politics to get it. But it's enough information to make the typical Internet shenanigans (like rogue and offensive comments) seem worryingly personal.

Like, when my son was born, somebody left the delightful comment: "Argh another Ginge......get yourself sterilised. Hope the doctor slapped you."

First off - my son's not ginger. Secondly, as much as a comment like this would, in Great Britain, be considered 'harmless, just poking fun' it was pretty shitty for somebody to write.

So by blogging non-anonymously, you're potentially opening yourself up to all sorts of trouble. It was a comment on a public blog that caused the third of my blogging chums to shut up shop (at least temporarily.)

So I guess I can see why my wife would have concerns - and in some way, I share them.

But I think you have to end up taking the American approach to things when it comes to blogging. "If we leave now, the (Internet) terrorists have won!"

I enjoy blogging. I love the real-life and 'Blogosphere' friends I keep in contact with here. I love how some of the issues I discuss raise a lot of debate. I enjoy forcing myself to write every day and have been surprised at how my writing has generally improved as a result.

Blogging is an important part of my life. I'm a gratuitous self publicist and blogging gives me a chance to 'expose myself' to everybody without having to wear a dirty mac and run around frightening people in the park.

Blogging, for me, is an outlet for the tangled thoughts in my head. If I didn't publish them online, my wife would have divorced me long ago for trying to discuss McCain vs Obama in the bedroom.

But the recent spate of blogging casualties has made me reexamine the whole blogging phenomenon and I have to admit, I've noticed myself being a little more sensible about how much of my own life I share on the 'net.

You'll notice I refer to Wifey and Baby by rather unoriginal pseudonyms (like, erm, Wifey and Baby) rather than their real names. And I still avoid discussing hot button topics that might effect me at work (which is killing me, since there's an angry rant just begging to be written about a new development in the office.)

I think it's time to tone it down a bit - at least for a while. Sometimes we all need to 'dig in' and avoid the crossfire. After all, after more than two years of blogging, I don't want to become just another Internet statistic.

But don't worry. Militant Ginger will (touch wood) keep on delivering.

Inside the British Mindset...

I recently picked a fight with a blogger* (although I think we might have reached a detente now.)

I don't often do this. Normally, I make friends with other bloggers, since blogging interaction is an important part of this self-expression we call blogging - sometimes the friends we meet on the 'blogosphere' are the only people who actually read our blogs!

But this blogger pushed my buttons!

The blogger in question is actually a very fluent and compelling writer and her blog is written in a great 'stream of consciousness' style. I just hated it because her blog clearly illustrates the mindset of some Brits I've met. She is the sort of person I moved away from Britain to escape!

Her writing represents every judgemental, negative character trait traditionally associated with a miserable minority of British people. For example, when it comes to 'my kind':

"Red-headed men are surely the most unattractive male specimens on the planet at the best of times, but they look even worse with their horribly pale, freckled skin... "

Thanks, lady. Us gingers can't hear that enough.

Of course, I find this comment offensive - but I don't sweat it. Yes, I know that British men are considered unattractive in the UK. That's the basis behind the Militant Ginger blog!

Fortunately, in more civilised places like France or America, red hair can be seen as attractive, so I don't take her stupid comment to heart. I think this blogger says more about herself with that nasty opinion than anything about redheads.

Still, I guess it could be worse. Since our blogger's rants are blissfully anonymous, she could just of easily have really rocked the boat and written: 'Black men are surely the most unattractive male specimens on the planet,' or 'Asian men look even worse with their horrible yellow, hairless skin...'

She probably just doesn't want to be labelled as a judgemental, vacuous racist. So she winds up just being labeled judgemental and vacuous instead.

Still, I guess everybody's entitled to their own opinion - and as far as opinions go, she's got lots more of them. One of the others that got up my nose was:

"It's strange the way that I still get a shiver of repulsion down my spine when I hear a certain kind of English accent, normally a Southern one. I immediately think to myself "Wanker!" When I hear a southern accent, I immediately assume the person is culturally arrogant and more privileged than me, without knowing anything about them."

Since I've got a received-pronunciation English accent (what a Scottish bird might easily identify as 'southern') I took this comment personally too (just like I did with her opinion of redheaded men.)

But it's just as vacuous and judgemental as the previous rant, so I shouldn't lose any sleep over it. It just makes me sad - another typically negative 'Brit' stereotype from our opinionated blogging pal.

I think it was George Bernard Shaw who famously said: "It is impossible for an Englishman to open his mouth without making some other Englishman hate or despise him." Our blogger's clearly a proponent of that theory. Somebody speaks - so she judges them based on how their voice sounds.

One of the most refreshing things about moving to America is the absence of this 'accent assumption.' I think it's a curiously British obsession with class that immediately makes Brits judge somebody by their accent (and assume this new person is either socially inferior, 'one of them' or 'stuck up.')

This blogger's judgemental attitude illustrates one of the major difference between Brits and Americans.

For the most part, Americans are more or less confident about who they are and what their place is in the world, no matter how humble their upbringing.

A dirt poor, gun-owning, truck-driving Pennsylvania resident might feel out of place at a multi-million dollar Hampton's yacht party, but certainly wouldn't feel 'inferior' to the WASP'y guests (the Van Der Beeks and the Chuffington-Herberts.)

Instead, in Britain, we get taught to have an unhealthy obsession with how other people perceive us. There's no such thing as the 'working class' any more, but some people still have a 'working class' chip on their shoulder.

Likewise, the middle-class scramble desperately to keep up with the Jones, while their children descend the other way. Public schoolboy Charles Smythe goes to University, adopts an estuary accent and becomes 'Charlie Smith' - at least, until his parents pick him up in the Volvo at the end of term.

Whatever class niche we're born into, far too many Brits spend their lives making an upward or downward scramble out of it. It all rather sad, really.

Reading this blogger's rants and opinions, it just reinforced how pleased I was to be shot of the dark and dreary mindset of Brits like her. In the vast majority of blogs I've read, one invariably comes to like and sympathise with the author, even if you don't agree with them.

She manages to achieve the almost impossible - becoming more and more unlikeable with every blog post she writes. I find it quite astonishing really. Almost compelling. Part of me wonders, if we met face to face, whether she'd be just as unlikeable in person or whether we'd actually get on (as bizarrely sometimes happens in this sort of situation.)

In any event, I'd just like to let North American readers know that our friendly blogger is NOT typical of my countrymen (although not nearly rare enough, either.) For some much better British blogs, check out the list of links I have on the right hand side!

* her blog is here, but be warned that it is targeted towards adults and somewhat explicit in nature.

Work in Progress...

As you may have noticed, there's been a funky addition to the left hand side of this blog (no, your other left.)

I have managed to wrangle myself a whole extra third column! Which is far better than a fifth column as any politician will tell you! It's all thanks to the brilliant tutorials over at Tips For New Bloggers, which presents blogging instructions even I can understand.

How this will effect the overall shape of the blog, I'm not quite sure - but it's filled with possibilities. Until then, don't mind the mess (a new header is desperately needed to fill in all that extra blank space.) I will have everything back to looking pretty soon enough.

Petite Anglaise

Although blogs are a great way to make friends online and keep your parents and friends up-to-date with your adventures, it's fairly obvious that the most dedicated (i.e. self important) of us bloggers are sometimes out there just to make a name for ourselves.

Which is why the success of bloggers-turned-authors like Belle Du Jour can be both frustrating, yet strangely affirming.

The latest blog-into-book is the blog of 35 year old expat Petite Anglaise.

Catherine Sanderson, under the nom de souris Petite Anglaise, started her blog in 2004, inspired by the likes of Belle Du Jour (which leads me to suspect that she harboured a certain self-publicist streak right from the very beginning!)

It started off as the amusing anecdotes of a British woman living and working in France, dutiful wife to 'Mr Frog' and loving mother to the bilingual baby 'Tadpole.'

But within a year of starting her blog, Sanderson shifted the focus of her writing away from the amusing expat experience (like her recommendations for working with FFs (French Females) to a more introspective and personal journal. This chronicled the breakdown of her marriage and her relationship with a new man she met in the comments section of her blog.

Her blogging continued it's surprising twists and turns when her boss uncovered Sanderson's candid chronicles - and swiftly gave her the boot (not the first time a blogger has been canned for their online antics.)

Taking her employer to court for wrongful dismissal, Catherine Sanderson picked up a £30,000 settlement, as well as a tornado of media interest promoting her story (and her blog) in British and French national newspapers. It even earned her a place on Richard and Judy's well-worn pastel sofa.

And just like that, Sanderson earned the happy-ending all blogger's secretly fantasise about. The media whirlwind inspired Michael Joseph (an imprint of Penguin) to publish her blog. We'll finally see the adventures of Petite Anglaise hit the bookshelves this June.


Bookish Blogging

Seeing the success of a blogger like Petite Anglaise can inspire conflicting emotions amongst us 'undiscovered' bloggers.

In some ways, it's incredibly exciting to see a fellow blogger make 'the big time' through their online exploits. But it's also rather frustrating to see somebody else succeed when your blog still languishes in relative obscurity.

However, skirting the emotional issues, it's clear to see why Catherine Sanderson's blog succeeded where others (such as mine) would fail.

Writing a publishable blog

Sanderson's blog makes for compelling reading - it's as simple as that.

My blog is pretty unpublishable, because it contains a few snippets of my boring life (painting the nursery and cooing at shiny red cars) in amongst reviews, editorials and completely unqualified opinionating about topics I have no authority to blog about (Kosovo, for example.)

Petite Anglaise has been a focused Bridget-Jones-esque journal from day one - and her romantic misadventures make the desire to find out 'what happens next' totally addictive. Catherine Sanderson expertly writes a real-life, expat soap-opera and we want to know more about her life - even if we disapprove of it.

And it is sometimes difficult to sympathise with Sanderson. Having just settled into my forth year of marriage, I find it rather uncomfortable the way a wife and mother like Petite Anglaise so swiftly dropped her spouse for an Internet beau - although I took no satisfaction in reading about her getting similarly dumped just over a year later.

It's also easy to be cynical about the way she embraced the media firestorm following her dismissal.

Catherine Sanderson made perfect headline fodder, but the beautiful young blond settled into her new role of 'celebrity blogger' disturbingly easily (similar observations have been levelled towards the most famous blogger/author Belle du Jour, who many people think is just the fictional alter-ego of some frustrated London hack.)

But leaving aside my petty prejudices, I can see the immediate appeal of an attractive, intelligent expatriate sharing her romantic misadventures in a blog-turned-book.

Whether you approve or disapprove of the choices she's made, Catherine Sanderson has one hell of a story to tell and if her blog is any indication of her writing skills, it's going to make for entertaining reading when it hits the bookstores.

Petite Anglaise by Catherine Sanderson is available on June 17th from Amazon.com and bookstores.

Abortion shouldn't be a political issue...

Over on CK's blog, he's gearing up for a month-long debate on an issue about which he feels very strongly. Abortion.

Totally unlike England, where the topic is wisely avoided, American politicians stake their political territory with their attitudes towards abortion.

No other social topic polorises the American people. CK himself admits that Democratic "financial and social policies would fly with most of the Christian right, but their stance on abortion forces them to vote predominately Republican."

It's a very thorny topic - so I thought I'd throw my two cents in.

When it comes to abortion, I have two positions.

1. I do think abortion is wrong.
2. I don't think abortion should be banned.

These two statements might seem to be contradictory, but they're not. You don't have to agree with or condone abortion to realise that it's a problem that won't be solved by some utterly ill-considered blanket ban.

A federal ban on abortion - which is what I'd imagine hard core conservatives like CK are calling for - is an utterly unrealistic, unconstitutional and downright stupid idea. And I'll tell you why.

Why Abortion is Wrong

When it comes to the morality of abortion, CK and I are on the same page.

It's really quite simple. When sperm and egg combine and create a viable zygote, a woman is considered 'pregnant.' That zygote soon becomes an embryo, a multicellular diploid eukaryote, which ideally imbeds itself in the endometrial lining of a woman's uterus.

Unless something's wrong with it (25% of all pregnancies end before 13 weeks) or an accident happens, that bundle of cells will grow into a fetus and then be born as a baby. To all intents and purposes, new life begins at the moment of conception.

An abortion terminates that pregnancy - and snuffs out that potential new life before it even has a chance to begin. While the pro-choice advocates try to shuffle around the cold hard reality of it, it's really as simple as that. An abortion stops a beating heart.

Advances in science mean a premature baby can be kept alive earlier and earlier now. On the other end of the spectrum, scientists can create embryos and grow them in test tubes and could, theoretically, produce babies entirely independently of a human womb. So you can't really gloss over what abortion actually is.

Now I have a robust attitude towards life and death, growing up on a farm and being a firm advocate of meat-eating and huntin' and fishin' and all the animal-slaughtering resultant therein. However, I also believe that if you're grown up enough to let your eggs and your sperm get within touching distance of each other, you're grown up enough to deal with the consequences.

I personally consider the 'pro-choice' decision to be no decision at all.

Why an Abortion Ban is wrong...

Despite that being my personal take on the abortion issue, I am strongly opposed to the Republican demand for a federal ban on abortions - or giving individual states the right to ban the procedure. There are several reasons for this.

An Abortion Ban won't End Abortion

Remember prohibition, anyone?

The abortionist is probably the world's second oldest profession - probably stemming from a need generated by the first! Throughout recorded history there have always been abortions and doubtless, there always will be in the future.

From medicine women giving herbs and tinctures to induce miscarriage, to midwives with coat-hangers doing a side business 'helping' careless girls - the history of abortion is pretty much as long as the history of civilisation.

Abortion has only been legal for the last half century - yet it was a flourishing business in America long before then. Frank Sinatra's mother, Dolly, used to perform abortions in pre-war Hoboken.

The simple fact is, as long as there is a demand for abortions, there will be people willing to supply them - legally or illegally. Last year, there were 1.2 million abortions performed in the United States alone. Conservatives who imagine a ban will end them overnight are delusional.

At least legal abortions are performed by licenced physicians in clean, clinical conditions. A woman visiting an abortion clinic is offered counseling to ensure she's fully aware of the ramifications of the decision she's making. As it is presently, woman having abortions are at least offered a safe environment in which to do so.

If conservatives successfully overturn Roe vs. Wade - the Supreme Court ruling that declared abortion a constitutionally protected right - the abortion industry would simply go underground.

1.2 million women every single year seek abortions. The vast majority of them would continue to do so even if abortion was made illegal. They only difference is, they'd have them performed by unlicenced physicians, in unsanitary conditions - without any form of accountability.

History has shown that illegally performed abortions have a very high rate of infection, injury and death. If conservatives overturned the ban on abortions, they wouldn't save the lives of 'all' the babies. They'd just add a large number of young women to the death toll.

This is the number one reason why a ban on abortion is stupid. You don't have to like abortion - but you do have to accept the reality of the situation.

It's the conservatives' fault...

Abortion 'friendly' England is famed for it's high rate of teenage pregnancy. However, it's interesting to note that the real figures for unplanned teenage pregnancy are actually much higher in the United States - more than double.

Head down south to Texas and that percentage rate shoots up to be more than three times the figure in England - almost sixty girls out of a thousand wind up pregnant. Statistically, that means a higher percentage girls are having abortions in Texas too.

And why? Well, ironically, it's the fault of the same people calling for an abortion ban! Conservative policies are often to blame for unplanned pregnancies in the first place!

Take, for example, sex education. In modern society - with depictions of sexually active teenagers all over the television and movie screens - it's an accepted fact that youngsters are going to sexually experiment.

Yet abortion-hating conservatives also demand that teenagers are given 'abstinence only' sexual education. They're not told about contraceptives, sexually transmitted diseases or condoms. Instead, the conservatives believe teenagers should simply be instructed to 'keep it in their pants' until the day they walk down the aisle.

Yet mountains of research has proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that abstinence only sexual education does not work. Kids are just as likely to be sexually active after receiving abstinence only sexual education as kids who were taught about the 'bells and whistles' of responsible sex.

The only difference is that 'abstinence only' kids don't use protection.

How conservatives could ever imagine that abstinence only sexual education works is beyond me. The only thing I do understand is that this policy directly contributes to unplanned pregnancies.

Conservatives are a driving force behind the demand for abortions.

I'll tell you what to do, but I sure ain't helping...

Another way in which conservative policies directly contribute to the number of abortions performed in America regards their attitudes towards welfare.

In England, 17% of all pregnancies are terminated. In the United States, that figure is 22%. Why is the figure so much higher in America, where 50% of the population is supposedly against abortion?

The answer is easy - and directly linked to the number one reason why women have abortions. "I can't support a baby right now."

Britain's 'nanny state' policies reward single teenage mothers. Having a baby means a council house, welfare cheque and child support. For many teenage girls in lower class parts of the country, having a baby is seen as career choice. Women are 'set for life' if they knock out a couple of sprogs by age 20.

It's not an admirable policy - but it explains why more women in Britain are willing to follow their pregnancy through than in America.

Because rightly or wrong, America has a considerably smaller welfare system and the state is not going to be there to support every single mother. An unplanned pregnancy often means a woman simply can't support herself or her new baby - driving women towards having abortions simply because they have no other choice.

And ironically, it's conservative policies that drive this demand for abortions. The Republican's are the party of 'small government' in which Americans are expected to fend for themselves in matters of welfare and healthcare.

Republicans angrily insist that pregnant women carry their pregnancies to term - but then refuse to support them when they do. It's utterly contradictory and hypocritical. The pro-life conservatives cry that 'all life is sacred' as long as it's not their life and they're not expected to pay for it.

I'm not saying it's a good idea - I myself have conservative financial values - but if the conservatives REALLY wanted to reduce the number of women having abortions, they'd be there to offer them support. If a woman is driven to an abortion clinic because she 'can't support a baby,' a true pro-life campaigner would reach into their pocket and pay the rent cheque and grocery bill that this new mother can't.

But, of course, that's not how most conservatives think. They limit their appraisal of abortion to moral condemnation and angry jundgementalism. They never think of the consequences of their actions.

1.2 Million Served...

Zooming out and looking at the big picture, there are some other serious ramifications behind a conservative call for a blanket ban on abortions.

Last year, 1.2 million women had an abortion. Imagine, for a second, the inconceivable notion of 1.2 million women with unplanned pregnancies actually carrying them to term every single year!

Right now, the conservatives are bitching about the hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants entering the country every year. Imagine what would happen if a group as large as the population of Dallas, Texas turned up in our maternity wards as well?

Constitutional Hypocrisy

Let's not forget the possibly most important reason why a ban on abortion is an idiotic idea. Because the Supreme Court - the highest court of law in the United States - said a ban on abortion is fundamentally unconstitutional.

According to the Supreme Court in Roe vs. Wade, banning abortions violates the Fourteenth Amendment. That ruling means that no state or national legislative body can ban abortions. You don't have to like it, but it's the law.

Conservatives who oppose abortion want to elect a president who will appoint conservative judges to the Supreme Court - and hope that one of them will overrule Roe vs. Wade. There's nothing like bypassing the democratic process when you've got an axe to grind, eh?

Let's not beat around the (George) Bush. It's very clearly established in the Constitution that judges are not supposed to legislate from the benches. Making laws is the job of Congress and the Senate - and those laws must fit within the confines of the Constitution.

If conservatives want to pass a law banning abortions, they're damn well going to have to do it through the legislative, facing the scrutiny of this nation's elected representatives. Screwing around with Supreme Court is unconstitutional and unAmerican.

Conservatives may decry people burning the American flag, but apparently they're more than willing to stomp all over it to get what they want.

Just plain dumb...

And, finally, there's just the very unlikable face of the pro-life conservative movement, who undermine the morality of their argument each and every day with offensive and hypocritical actions.

Life is sacred, say the conservatives. Yet fervant anti-abortionists shoot doctors dead outside abortion clinics. Conservatives still support the death penalty. The right wing only 'Support our Troops' as far as sending them abroad to be shot at by Islamic fundamentalists.

I really don't like being lectured about the sanctity of life by people whose hands are practically dripping with blood.

The Solution

It's not all bad news. There is hope for the conservatives and for a rational, practical campaign to eliminate the need for abortions. Those who are pro-life have to look at the big picture and decide which values are more important to them - and what they're willing to sacrifice to help stamp out the demand for abortions in the United States.

Because banning them won't work - but long term changes might.

There are two main keys to reducing the number of abortions - and hopefully setting a precedent that will see the demand for pregnancy termination practically reduced to zero.

• Adequate sex education for teenagers - so they know how to avoid an unplanned pregnancy if they're sexually active (and two out of three are.)
• Adequate resources for poor mothers - so if a woman finds herself pregnant, she doesn't need to worry about paying for a roof over her head or affording food and medical bills.

The downside, of course, is that conservatives are going to have to put up with higher taxes to pay for this - and they're going to have to get off their blinkered high horse about decent sex education.

Whether or not the average conservative is willing to make that sacrifice is a question I can't answer - but until they're willing to, women will still seek abortions (legally or not.)

Preamble to the Debate...

One of the recent bloggers I've stumbled across is CK.

On the face of it, CK and I seem to have wildly opposing views on all sorts of things. We started interacting over a post he'd made about one of my favourite country songs of all time - Sugarland's moving ballad 'Stay.'

It quickly became apparent that there weren't very many things CK and I agreed on. He dismisses evolution and global warming - and the factual evidence upon which they're based - and I objected to some of his arguements (like the Bible's attitudes towards homosexuality.)

Despite these disagreements, I have to admit that I've developed a lot of respect for CK. In England we often use the term 'he's a gentleman and a scholar' to describe somebody we respect. CK most certainly belongs in the 'gentleman' category and I'm only leaving him out of the 'scholar' part because I think he's spent too much time reading The Good Book instead of other, unreleated books (on things like evolution and global warming!)

But as gruff and opinionated as his blog makes him sound, he's a classy guy for the way he's debated things with me. Reading his blog also shows that he's a big hearted, generous bloke who goes out of his way to do things to support his friends in his church community.

However much I'm intellectually frustrated with Christianity, you can't really argue with the good work people like CK do in the 'name' of God. I watched Batman Begins the other day and one line reminded me of CK. District Attorney Rachel Dawes turns to her friend Bruce Wayne (who she has no idea is really Batman) and says: 'It's not who you are inside that counts. It's what you do.'

And CK's the kind of guy who rolls up to a neighbour's house on a weekend off to help them cut firewood for the weeks ahead. However much I disagree with his beliefs or politics, I can't help but be humbled by the generous and selfless things he does out there in the 'real world.'

CK might humbly dismiss is as part of his 'religious duty,' but I know the truth. He's just a really great guy - and you don't need to be religiously inclined to recognize that.

However frustrated I am at Christianity or religion in general, it brings people together and it often gives them a purpose. Purpose is a very important thing. If we didn't have it - and didn't believe in something - then it's very easy to become totally nihilistic.

CK's living proof that religion is only a bad thing when bad things come of it. When good things spring from faith - like a shed full of wood for a shivering family - it's difficult for even hard-core secularists like me to dismiss it's benefits.

I just thought I'd mention these things before I launch into CK's current debate. You don't have to agree with somebody to acknowledge their qualities.