Aeryck recently wrote an article attacking atheists. For the record, I thought the article a poorly written, inflammatory attack on atheists, and found it unreasonable. Thus ends my editorial comment on the piece, which did NOT appear on his article.

Myrrander stated, and with SOME justification, that those who get angry when he puts out a piece attacking Christianity were not there to defend him. I will be the first to state that I said NOTHING on Aeryck's blog regarding the issue, and here's why:

I respect the rights of other bloggers to blog what they wish. If my response can't be worded in a reasonably diplomatic way on their piece, I TRY not to comment (there have been times when I have broken this rule, I admit). Frankly, a diplomatic response from my end requires TIME; I don't do tact well without time to act as a filter to my rather strong opinions. And so I don't respond.

But what I ALSO don't do is cheer the blogger on through comments; in fact, I feel the best way to respond to those with whom you have very little common ground is through NONresponse; that's the avenue I try to use most frequently. Call it fence sitting, call it what you will, I call it respecting the free speech rights of other bloggers, rights which I have, from time to time, liberally exercised.

As to the post in question, it DOES underscore the hypocrisy of many Christians in their attitude towards atheists. But it does not represent the views of all of us, nor even, in my own empirical experience, of most of us.

So, if I don't rally 'round your flag, it doesn't mean I don't agree. More likely, I see it as an intellectual hamster wheel, best avoided in pursuit of more serious discussion.

Respectfully submitted,

Gideon MacLeish