Romney isn't the first person to call secularism a religion. I disagree with him very strongly about this but there have been so many things lately that have scared me that this one hardly registers.

So I'm not going to grab the fainting couch and fall into a politically-mandated puddle of tears.

Secularism is not a religion -- but our country is being ruled right now by the secular equivalent of a religion.

The War on Drugs has turned into the secular equivalent of a religion.

And it scares me that this religion has become so politically powerful and unquestionable that it can't even be questioned at Salon.

THAT IS SOMETHING I FIND SCARY.

But Mitt Romney supports this version of science-free secular religion -- which makes him a big fat hypocrite.

Mitt Romney is against medical marijuana. But there's nothing in the Bible that says you should lock people up for medical marijuana.

In fact as an expert revealed on last week's Naked Archaeologist -- cannabis was used as a medicine in the Holy Land for many centuries, and in accordance with current Israeli law, is still being used as a medicine today.

Locking people up for using or providing medical marijuana is not a religiously supported idea. That idea doesn't come from science either.

That idea originated in the secular religion of the Drug War.

We can see this is a religious idea because science has no power over it. Look at how much of the science Salon has written about -- zero.

Because the War on Drugs is a secular religion that can't ever be challenged by science!

So secularism in not a religion -- but there is a secular religion that is so powerful in America, it can't be mediated or argued with by the Bible or by science.

Or by journalism either!

It's become so sacred it can't even be questioned during the election. It's turned America into the most incarcerated nation in the world.

It's turned us into people do not even blink when we learn that prisoners are literally dying in California from lack of medical care.

THAT is our true state religion.

And there's no separation between that religion and state, because it is the religion of the state.

The National Academy of Sciences has published reports by economists and social scientists showing that there is zero correlation between the severity of drug laws and the rates of drug abuse across the world.

So supporting the War on Drugs truly is an act of pure faith.

Our faith that we can win this war some day by locking enough human beings in filthy steel and concrete boxes keeps us marching forward every day.

Social realism cannot describe the truly grotesque without falling into melodrama.

We are in a grotesque period of our history and any attempts to describe it using social realism are doomed to either come up short or fall into melodrama.

You can't even go to college now if you're an apostate.

Congress just reiterated its position on that matter quite strongly, although it wasn't covered in Salon, because Salon supports the state religion.

What if the offender lives in your home and just hasn't been caught yet? Isn't that how most child sexual abuse happens?

BUT I'll volunteer this: I'll probably vote for Hillary but I'm doing it for her health care plan rather than her gender.

It bothers me that she supported the war. But people die from lack of health care too.

they destroyed the tapes out of shame. But that's probably not the case.

We have a secular religion. The War on Drugs is a secular religion.

See -- there you are -- proof that secularism doesn't mean you can't believe in things that can't be proven by science.

There's not one shred of scientific evidence that incarceration cures addiction. If you believe that jail time is going to cure an addict -- then you believe in the supernatural. That's a supernatural phenomenon you're counting on.

Yet our secular government invests billions and billions of dollars in observing this religious ritual, this form of human sacrifice to the vengeful gods of concrete and steel.

The angry gods of concrete and steel have not answered the prayers of the faithful by destroying the unworthy or making them worthy, yet the followers hold their faith.

Their faith is absolute and unwavering and who the hell needs science anyways?

Target practice is impersonal. Domestic violence is quite personal. That's why knives and fists are used much more than guns. Because those are personal, not impersonal, weapons.

Fists and knives are the kinds of weapons criminals use when their violence is really aimed at that other person for very personal reasons.

I don't like the idea of punching bags with any kind of faces, male or female. It's just too personal. It's not just impersonal target practice when it has a face and you can touch it.

I think these punching bags really could encourage domestic violence.

I've read that sexual abuse of young men by older men has been an ongoing issue in Afghan culture. Reportedly a certain mujahedin commander beloved by the American right "back in the day" has a reputation similar to the villain in the novel.

In that book there are allegations that the mujahedin were raping their Russian POWs before they killed them.

Everything is fitted into and points toward the highly convenient plot line whereby the rapist years later turns out to be, surprise! the chief Taliban bad guy.

It's actually NOT the big coincidence you think it is.

But I can understand how somehow who hasn't read much about Afghan history and culture might think that.