The Dawn Patrol

No Comment

By The Raving Atheist

How am I going to handle the comments? That was my greatest concern upon accepting the keys to The Dawn Patrol. Apart from automatic spam controls, the comments aren�t touched at The Raving Atheist. Dawn, however, enforces the dread Harris Protocol. I barely made it through Robert�s Rules of Order, and had no desire to learn and apply a new set of speech regulations.

Fortunately, Dawn agreed to continue to police you. (Yes, you). But the prospect of assuming that unfamiliar role got me thinking about some of the free speech and censorship issues that arise at religious and secular blogs. In particular, I was wondering whether the stereotypes of the prudish (or authoritarian) believer vs libertine atheist withstood scrutiny. Also, given that abortion is a frequent topic at TRA and the Patrol, I�ve also considered whether there is more censorship on the pro-life or pro-choice side of the blogosphere. Although abortion isn�t a religious issue for me (nothing is), the debate generally breaks down along faith-based lines. So if the stereotypes held, you might predict more censorship at pro-life blogs (at least the non-atheist ones).

As noted, at my godless site reader submissions are completed unregulated. Is this in any way a function of my atheism? Indirectly. First, atheism is a negative philosophy, in the sense that its only purpose is to negate and attack theism. Such criticism, at least in societies with a religious majority, requires protection to survive. So atheists (especially those running the ACLU) have traditionally advocated strong free speech guarantees. And it would make little sense for an atheist blogger to censor believers, because their views are very subject matter of his site.

Atheists also tend to be blasphemers, which often leads to obscenity. Doestevsky's "everything is permitted" naturally morphs into Cole Porter�s Anything Goes: �Good authors too who once knew better words/Now only use four-letter words." My own cursing has declined over the years, but in the early days it was ubiquitous. Bad language are not a necessary component of atheist discourse, and, in fact, large philosophical works devoted to the topic have been written without them. But with respect to censorship, my point is just that given my own behavior I�m in no position to criticize or curtail anyone else's choice of words.

Atheists can, of course, be censors. Communists don't have a reputation as civil libertarians. And being a disfavored minority doesn�t inevitably lead to a love of speech -- the Nazis who fight for the right to march obviously wouldn�t reciprocate once in power. (Note: comments debating whether communism/Nazism are necessary consequences of atheism, or vice versa, will be deleted).

Atheism, by its nature, also acts as a censor, or at least a filter. Many religious people would not read, much less post comments on, an atheist blog. And those who do sometimes find them driven off by the nastiness of the atheist regulars, who forgo civil debate to exploit known sensitivities to blasphemy and obscenity. Some of my readers view TRA as a private atheist club, with the religious being unwelcome, proselytizing outsiders. So my failure to moderate has resulted in a less open forum in some ways.

The club atmosphere, however, is more prevalent at religious blogs, and more likely to be enforced by the site proprietor. Many of them are akin to churches or prayer groups. Their point is to worship and glorify God, not to debate. Atheists who leave comments can expect to be expelled as surely as they would had they started ranting in a cathedral. Some religious sites do welcome theological dialogue, but commonly the discussion is limited to narrow doctrinal differences within the context of theism rather across the theism/atheism divide. This is not necessarily evidence of theocratic intolerance -- it�s just a function of having a narrowly-themed blog. I'd expect (and deserve) to be banned if I started extolling the virtues of atheism at a stamp collecting blog, or engaged in cat-hating at a feline fanciers' site (or a cat god one).

The religious sites with the least censorship are those devoting to refuting atheism rather than promoting theism. Like atheist blogs, they depend to some degree on input from their adversaries. But there aren't very many of them (in fact, the only one I can think of is a defunct blog called The Secularist Critique).

The Patrol is not, strictly speaking, a religion blog. But it is evolving in that direction. Its author already has such a reputation as a religious wingnut (I take no position on the question) that no matter how common-sensically she writes her views are denounced as mere sectarian dogma. Her reputation as a censor is almost as bad. Stories of "banishment from Eden" so permeate the Blogsophere that you�d think you were reading Genesis. "She deleted me just for disagreeing with her" is a common refrain.

To which I say, bullsh*t. Not just because she's letting someone like me guest host (which can be attributed to our agreement on other issues) or just because she's never deleted any of my comments (which can be attributed to me being careful). I've read enough of the complaints -- usually posted at comments sections in other blogs with the offending Patrol comment reproduced -- to know better. Invariably, the commenter either engaged in a unacceptable level vulgarity or, more commonly, expressed the disagreement on an off-topic subject.

I don't obsessively police Dawn's policing and I imagine it's possible that she sometimes bans someone out of pure spite. (I certainly hope so). But what I find ironic is that the sites I've found much of the complaining on are atheist and/or liberal sites that have banned or threatened to ban me -- Pandagon, Feministe and BushvChoice -- for politely expressing an opinion, usually about abortion. The Pandagon ban (by atheist blogger Amanda Marcotte) resulted from commentary on the John Roberts nomination (reproduced here) which did not even mention "choice." The comment deleted from BushvChoice (see full discussion here) also concerned Roberts, including his views on abortion and other topics. Atheist Lauren threatened to ban me from Feministe (see here) for allegedly "hijacking" a comment thread -- after leaving an on-topic comment, I made the mistaking of responding to her fans' patently off-topic questions to me about my abortion stance. And Jill of Feministe more recently implied that I was banned from that blog (I haven't tried commenting to see if it is so) for allegedly mischaracterizing her view on abortion and religion at a post on my site (discussion here).

It's surprising to me that people who complain so frequently about religious oppression and advocate abortion up to the line of infanticide can be so thin-skinned sometimes about mere words. BushvChoice even once deleted a comment by Katha Pollitt -- an atheist pro-choice advocate -- because she criticized NARAL's support of pro-choice Republicans who voted for cloture on the Alito nomination debate (see here). It hurts me not to blame such intolerance on religion, so I'll just chalk it up to religious zeal (about politics). Or maybe "magical thinking" (which, as Amanda taught me, is how atheists can insult other for expressing allegedly superstitious thoughts).

I suppose Dawn will have an easy time overseeing the comments to this post since I haven't really said anything on which reasonable people could disagree. It's been fun guest-hosting the Patrol and I hope you've enjoyed my stay. If you haven�t, well, I have just two words for you:

[God Bless!]
[Conclusion Edited by Siteowner]
4:32 PM |

Saturday, April 29, 2006

Stoops to Conquer

Happiness is...a friend who offers to come over two evenings in a row to help you pack.

I'm still packing...but took a break earlier tonight so that my thoughtful friend Kevin could photograph me on my last night at my old place. You can see some of my discarded furniture in this shot — getting new stuff for the new place, praise God! Finally, at age 37, I will live in a place that looks like a grownup's home and not an overcrowded dorm room.

(Back to you, Raving Atheist.)

11:37 PM |

Secularist Organization Cracks Down on �Cafeteria Atheists�

New York, New York, April 28, 2006
Special to The Dawn Patrol
By The Raving Atheist

The nation's largest secular organization is purging its membership of so-called "cafeteria atheists" -- atheists who selectively exercise the freedom bestowed upon them by the absence of a supervising deity, picking and choosing among the vices they commit rather than engaging in every conceivable form of self-degradation.

American Atheists yesterday announced that the dissenters would be denied the nonsacrament of the "Eu Can�t Resist," a quasi-cannibalistic rite in which the flesh and blood of an unborn human is shed to symbolize a lack of restraint and the meaninglessness of life. However, many cafeteria atheists have already dispensed with the rite, or liberalized it by adopting a nine-month waiting period and releasing the resulting being to enjoy its own freedom.

The rift between cafeteria atheists and traditional atheists has been widening since the advent of Hefner II, in which the secular governing council eliminated all limits on the number of permissible sexual partners and liberalized other restrictions on civilized behavior.

One traditionalist bitterly condemned the godless newcomers for their "not unholier-than-thou" attitude. "I was raised atheist by pot-smoking hippies and my aunt is a prostitute," said Rainbow Skylark. "It sticks in my craw when people who f---ed around through their 20�s and then discovered atheism swan around telling everyone else -- including lifelong atheists -- that rationality requires One True Morality consistent with stable relationships and human life."

Self-described "atheist apostate" James Maclan disagreed. "Reason does not require the abandonment of rules or ethics," he said. "In any event, those who advocate the rejection of all laws cannot object to the violation of their own."
2:17 PM |

Packing Is Dis-tressing

Dawn again. (Trust me, The Raving Atheist wouldn't look quite like this in a blonde wig.)

I had to say goodbye to my Ann Coulter wig. I'm afraid it will not survive the move.

I wore it only once before, Halloween 2004. It disappointed me deeply when none of my New York Post co-workers knew whom I was supposed to be. In fact, they never even asked. Perhaps they were too scared.

Related: Charles G. (Dustbury) Hill's "Ann Coulter/Dawn Eden Dichotomy".
12:29 AM |

Friday, April 28, 2006

What Would Teresa Do?

Dawn again. I was just reading in St. Teresa of Avila's Life that one should regularly pray for the souls in Purgatory. What is a good prayer to say for such souls?

11:21 PM |

Hubba Bubble

Dawn here, squeezing in a quick hello as I pack. I'm thinking about the things I'll miss about this town where I've lived for over 15 years. I think the main thing I'll miss is being able to stop on my way to work to buy bubble tea. The place that sells it to me makes it with a mix of iced tea and iced coffee, both premixed with milk and sugar. It sounds weird but is absolutely delicious.
10:12 PM |

Lifer?

By The Raving Atheist

As a Texas prison worker, Shirley Setterbo helped rehabilitate felons. The tables were turned last year when she revealed to the inmates that she had been an atheist for three decades — she was viewed as the biggest sinner in the joint and they all began praying for her reformation. She chronicled that experience in a blog called AtheistExposed, which has unfortunately been deleted. However, she's created a new blog, AtheistExposed2, in which she records similar adventures in coming out godless in her new office job within the correctional system.

I thought that in her relatively cushy work environment, Shirley might be missing the challenge of a really tough audience. The people at my crisis pregnancy center seem pretty hardcore, at least faith-wise, so I suggested that she volunteer at a local CPC and try her luck proselytizing there. Although I offered to cross-post her adventures on my regular blog, she wrote back reluctantly:

You know . . . It's an uncomfortable issue . . . I'm really not concrete on my views on the issue. I mean, I don't think children should be born to parents, that don't want to, or are not ready to raise them. So many of the federal prisoners came from just that environment. But, the whole ugliness of killing a baby is just so dreadful, I can barely stand to think of it. But, It does sound like a lively conversation starter. Let me sleep on it a night or two. I think it might, do some good, in spreading the word -- "That Atheists are good people". Shirley

Is it legitimate to argue that children who lead a life of crime result from women who commit the crime of life? I think you'll have an easier time convincing Shirley of the flaws of that reasoning than she'll have persuading a CPC crowd that there are errors in their cosmological, teleological and ontological arguments. Whatever the case, I'm sure that we all agree in the end, the Truth will prevail. In the meantime, try to talk Shirley into copping a plea for a "life" sentence.

11:54 AM |

Thursday, April 27, 2006

Atheist Turns Catholic Blog into Soapbox for Blasphemy

New York, New York, April 27, 2006
Special to The Dawn Patrol

Reneging on a solemn promise to �behave,� an atheist guest-hosting at a Catholic blog has vowed to turn the site into a forum for the blasphemous advocacy of promiscuity, abortion and pornography.

The Raving Atheist, entrusted with the password to The Dawn Patrol while its proprietress prepares for a move, announced his plans to defile the blog at a press conference in front of Planned Parenthood�s headquarters.

TRA said he would expose the Patrol�s readership to the sordid world of polygamy, obscenity, feticide and loveless bed-hopping with liberal links to sites such as Pandagon and Feministe. �Furthermore, by offering pointed criticisms of their godless, libertine lifestyles, I�ll insure that the shrill, depraved harpies who run those sites will pollute the Patrol�s comments section with attacks on everything decent,� he said. He promised to incite them further by censoring or deleting any off-color or off-topic diatribes, in the hope that they would then litter the Blogosphere with intemperate, ad hominen attacks upon Dawn Eden�s faith, morals, work history and personal life.

TRA added that he was particularly looking forward to the reaction of the Patrol�s religious following to the expected onslaught. "Their faith will be sorely tested as they are swept up into an unfamiliar world of controversy and hatred," he said. TRA suggested he might enlist the help of another atheist blogger, Saint Kansas, to stir the pot and maximize anger and confusion among the faith-based regulars.

One thing that he will not touch, TRA noted, is the blog�s name. "I want 'The Dawn Patrol� to be forever associated with Satan's war against humanity," he said. "So the more things change at this site, the more that will remain the same."

5:30 PM |

Long May He Rave

I'm preparing for a move, so, from now through Sunday, I'm handing the Dawn Patrol reins to The Raving Atheist. I know he's got some great things planned, so please stay tuned.

12:56 PM |

Quote of the Day

Jeff Grimshaw on Gene Pitney's hit version of the Ned Washington/Dmitri Tiomkin movie theme "Town Without Pity":

For one thing, it doesn�t sound like an actual song so much as it sounds like some bizarre, over-the-top Saturday Night Live parody of an actual song. Musically it�s a close cousin to sleazy burlesque numbers like "Night Train" but the huge brass section pumps so much testosterone into the arrangement it�s something else entirely. It totally transcends �sleazy� and crosses over into �clinically insane.� And of course wailing away on top of this, there�s the late great Gene Pitney. He takes on a brass section roughly the size of Patton�s Third Army and fights it to a draw; he grabs the tune by the throat, slams it into the dresser, frog-marches it into the bathroom, sticks its head in the toilet, slams the lid, and flushes repeatedly. "Had enough??" pants Gene. "Town without Pity" stands up, dripping, spits out 15 or 20 teeth, and says, "Is that all you got, bitch?" But it's not! Gene's got plenty left!! What a singer! What a song! It�s like Ali versus Foreman! Or more properly, Alien Versus Predator, in that no matter which one wins, we lose . . .

12:05 PM |

Here Comes the Son

My seminarian friend Dennis Schenkel just posted a practice homily, which he wrote for this past Sunday's readings.

I mentioned a few days ago that a friend had complained about dull Catholic preaching. Dennis is not one for dullness, that's for sure. His palpable enthusiasm for expounding upon God's Word is refreshing.

I have to say, I'm either too young or too old for Dennis's Fred, Velma, and Shaggy references. (Truthfully, nearly any television or film reference in a homily makes me cringe.) But that doesn't really matter, because he uses Scooby to make an excellent point. What's more, I love the message behind one of his other pop-cultural references, regarding the resurrected Jesus' first appearance in the upper room:

The Bible doesn�t tell us what they were thinking, but imagine what you would have been thinking. Imagine that your friend, who trusted you, had been arrested and executed, and during his trial, when he needed his friends most, you had not been there for him, you had not said one word in his defense, and you even told other people that you didn�t even know him. If you had heard that your friend was back from the dead, would you be looking forward to seeing him? Or would you be hearing the voice of the movie trailer guy in your head saying:JESUS
IS
BACK!
and THIS time�
it�s PERSONAL!
Yeah, Peter and his friends were probably not feeling very brave that day. But the thing that happened next was not at all like the thing they were most afraid of ... [Read the whole thing.]

2:06 AM |

Wednesday, April 26, 2006

Feministe's Church Lady

Blame The Da Vinci Code.

Suddenly, everyone wants to be Catholic — if only so they can retain their politically correct credentials while bashing the Church. It's sort of like Jews' using their religion as an excuse to tell "Abe and Sol" jokes (a pet peeve of my sister the rabbi), or black rappers' arguing that the n-word's not racist when they use it.

Now, Feministe's Zuzu writes in a post titled "Converts' Zeal" that she, as an "officially apostate" Catholic, is infuriated when new converts like myself claim to express the Church's teachings:

Um, folks, I was raised Catholic. I�m of an ethnic group (Irish) where I am presumed to be Catholic. My aunt is a nun. Anyone who hears that there are six children in my family almost invariably mentions Catholicism. Even though I am officially an apostate now (ask me how!), I still have trouble not thinking of myself as Catholic, and I know that others assume I am still one. ...

But I have been subject to anti-Catholic bullsh-t in my life, including in law school, by a professor (who not only let a role-play exercise on the Church�s AIDS policies devolve into Catholic-bashing, he participated with cracks about the wine during Mass, complete with �drinky drinky� hand gestures, which I took as a slam against Irish Catholics, because nobody gets on the Italians or Latinos for drinking). . . .

So, yes, it sticks in my craw when people who f---ed around through their 20s and then found the Catholic Church swan around telling everyone else � including lifelong Catholics � that they have found the One True Way. These are people who idealize the Church because they have no institutional memory of the way things used to be. [Click here for the full post.]

She then quotes a comment referencing me from another Feministe blog entry (there's a cottage industry in angry-feminist Dawn Patrol retorts), which reads in part:

The main reason why I no longer attend a Catholic Church and now attend our lovely Episcopalian Church is because of the nature of recent converts. They have all but destroyed our parish.

The commenter then brings up a few of the Church-connected horrors which I have unfairly escaped as a recent convert, including the Magdalene laundries. The message is that I, knowing only the "nice" Church, have no right to assume that the dogmas I learned in the Catechism will lead to a world of niceness. In fact, according to Zuzu and her amen corner, the Catechism points to drunkenness (apparently that professor wasn't so far off) and white slavery.

There's a recognizable pattern to many of the responses to Zuzu's post, but I'll leave it to you to discover it for yourself. Here are some excerpts (or you can read them all):

Hear, hear. I was raised Catholic and also lapsed. I grew up in an extremely conservative small-town and there was a strong undercurrent of anti-Catholicism. Before I rejected Christianity altogether I was always proud that my fellow Catholics weren�t nearly as g--damn preachy and in your face all the time as the protestants were.

* * *

I too am I former Catholic, Irish, though I was part of a very liberal family, wherein we were always taught the spirit of kindness and giving and love and understanding rather than the bullsh-t preaching and condemning that goes on these days.

* * *

thanks for this, Zuzu. Also lapsed Irish Catholic; and adopted, so I�m Polish Catholic too. And still after being lapsed for more than 12 years, it�s really, really hard to not think of myself as Catholic, or to not get bent out of shape at really inappropriate Catholic-bashing (my personal favorite was the Jehovah�s Witness who came to my door and told me my mother, being a Catholic, was an idol-worshipper). Or not to hope that one day the Catholic church (as theocratic entity and international politico extraordinaire) will become what it could be as opposed to what it is.

* * *

I was raised in a village where 92% of the town is Catholic and I would guess about 80% of us attended the large Catholic Church a block from the high school that could seat/stand 5,000 on Christmas. I did religion class every Tuesday from k-8th grade, then two years of 8 weeks of two hours every Wed night seminar confirmation prep classes. I�ve been Baptised, I�m clear to take communion, and I�ve done Reconciliation. I quit a year before Confirmation, however three of my five good friends from high school I still keep in touch with are Catholic. And when I realized that Catholicism wasn�t right for me, I did more studying into the religion then most kids who were raised Catholic or converted. I wanted so badly to make it right so I could make my mother and grandparents happy. It didn�t work, but I still consider myself kinda culturally Catholic. It doesn�t matter what religion I am now (neo-pagan actually), a part of Catholcism will always be with me.

* * *

I call RCIA converts �magisterium Catholics.� I used to be one. My mom made my brother and I go kicking and screaming to our very first mass when we were 11 and 13 respectively. Having no religious references at all we thought the Lord�s Prayer chanted by the parish sounded a lot like the borg assimilation speech.

1:49 AM |

Tuesday, April 25, 2006

Taking a break from blogging this early morning so I may finish a chapter in Teresa of Avila's Life before going to bed.

For another good read, read the story I edited about a bat mitzvah girl who, with her Labrador, does mitzvot (good deeds) for the elderly. (It's up now — fixed the link.)

2:33 AM |

Monday, April 24, 2006

The Purpose-Riven Life

Commenter Jill writes in response to my asking if anything could be proven about the humanity of an unborn child that would alter her support for abortion:

First, let me say that I don't believe that a fetus is the equivalent of a full human life; I don't think that most pro-lifers honestly do either, because if that was the case they'd be advocating for murder (or at least accessory) charges for women who have abortions and doctors who perform them. For the most part, they aren't, which leads me to believe that they also think that the fetus is "something else." Not nothing, but not the same thing as a three-year-old.

But that said, even if we could demonstrate that a fetus was the full equivalent of a human being, I would still be in favor of abortion rights, because I don't think that any human being has the right to use another's organs and body for its own survival without that person's consent. Now, you can make the argument that the woman "invited" the pregnancy by having sex, but that doesn't logically hold -- particularly if she was using birth control or condoms, thereby taking proactive steps to prevent pregnancy. Leaving your door unlocked isn't the same thing as "inviting" a squatter. We don't mandate organ donation. In no area other than pregnancy is it even suggested that people should physically support the life of another.

Does that sound crass? Yes. Are there arguments against it, most of which I've heard? Certainly. But that's my view. Just as I don't imagine concrete proof that fetuses feel no pain and are not the same things as born humans would change your opinion on abortion, evidence of fetal pain or life won't change mine.

I am reminded why the natural law argument against abortion and for life, which I have heard expounded by Father Bryce Sibley and others, is so important.

If one believes that the humanity of the unborn child does not matter because a mother is not responsible for the human life growing inside her, then no one is responsible for another in any way. Parents are not responsible for their children and children are not responsible for their elderly or disabled parents. Husbands are not responsible for their elderly or disabled wives, and vice versa. No one has any responsibility to the poor, unfortunate, or suffering.

If the use of contraception, for example, as Jill suggests, particularly excuses a woman from having any responsibility towards her child before birth, then the simple act of birth does not fundamentally change the situation. The mother of a child could argue that she has the right to abandon or cause any manner of harm to him because she used contraception in an effort to prevent his birth. If she was allowed to harm him while he was an unwanted tenant inside her womb — and a person, yet — there is no fundamental difference in her harming him when he is an unwanted tenant in her home. She could argue that she simply never had the means to abort him, and would have if she could have.

The natural law states that all of us, men and women, have responsibilities to others, brought upon us by the physical nature of our humanity. Deny those responsibilities and inhumanity results.

1:46 AM |

Sunday, April 23, 2006

The Feminine Mystic

Last night, I received beautiful news when a friend who was brought up Catholic, and who for years had not attended any kind of church regularly, told me he'd recently become a revert.

My friend said that one thing that disappointed him upon returning to the Church was that the preaching was dry compared to what he had experienced at Evangelical churches that he had visited.

That's a real problem, as any Catholic who's experienced good Evangelical preaching knows. I tried to console him by saying that there was some great preaching available on podcasts. I was thinking of Word on Fire, which I'd heard once. However, I just listened to the latest Word on Fire (the Easter one) and was immediately put off by its gee-whiz anecdotal tone. I don't doubt it had a good message at the end, but I couldn't wade past the setup.

One great podcast which is not a sermon per se, but a 12-minute theological exposition, is "The Genius of Feminine Theology," by Father Bryce Sibley, one of several excellent talks the Louisiana priest has made available on his site The Word Made Flesh. Father Sibley discusses the unique aspects of the theology of female saints such as Theresa of Lisieux.

A fascinating point that Father Sibley brings up is that Catholic theology sees masculinity and feminity on more than one level. There is the physical level, but also the spiritual one. With the latter, men can gain from experiencing female spirituality ,and vice versa, while retaining the integrity of their sexual identity. In other word, men can identity themselves as the Bride of Christ and still be manly men. Father Sibley cites John Paul the Great on this point; here's a relevant quote I found from Mulieris Dignitatum:

From a linguistic viewpoint we can say that the analogy of spousal love found in the Letter to the Ephesians links what is "masculine" to what is "feminine", since, as members of the Church, men too are included in the concept of "Bride". This should not surprise us, for Saint Paul, in order to express his mission in Christ and in the Church, speaks of the "little children with whom he is again in travail" (cf. Gal 4:19). In the sphere of what is "human" - of what is humanly personal - "masculinity" and "femininity" are distinct, yet at the same time they complete and explain each other. This is also present in the great analogy of the "Bride" in the Letter to the Ephesians. In the Church every human being - male and female - is the "Bride", in that he or she accepts the gift of the love of Christ the Redeemer, and seeks to respond to it with the gift of his or her own person.

That deep level of understanding, which has such great respect for the differences between men and women while at the same time celebrating their spiritual complementarity, is one of the things that makes me in love with the Church.

Can anyone recommend a good Catholic podcast for my friend? Please leave your suggestions in the comments — thanks.

2:31 AM |

Saturday, April 22, 2006

Comic Cut-Ups

Kevin Walsh tipped me off to something wonderfully surreal in the comics this week.

It reminds me of how Charles M. Schulz was ahead of his time.

12:41 AM |

Friday, April 21, 2006

Cross Purposes

Sarah asks, "Why do Catholics cross themselves?"

In the comments, Saint Kansas offers the same answer I would give. The only thing is, I would add a link to the words "other side."

4:51 PM |

Spring on the Wing

Spotted in the eaves of the Summit, N.J., rail station early this afternoon: a fat, slightly squat bird with a cream-colored chest, brown wings, and dark eye markings, chirping up a storm. If I lived next to it, I might find it annoying. But I was just standing in the sunshine and crisp spring air on a train platform, and it was a delight to see a bit of unexpected wildlife.

4:30 PM |

Alice in Funder-land

In Canada, they've come up with a bizarre and disturbing way to make charity benefit from those who possess heavy mettle.

2:47 AM |

Thursday, April 20, 2006

Pro-Life Doctor Re-Enacts Partial-Birth Abortion

Via American Papist and Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam, here's a video that Planned Parenthood won't be showing on MTV. It's a clip from "God's Miracle of Life: Pro-Life DVD":

Gynecologist Dr. William R. Lile gives an astounding presentation of the Miracle of Life. Using ultrasound technology and in-vitro cameras, Dr. Lile shows how the unborn child develops while in its mother's womb.

After showing, with incredible clarity, the personhood of the human child, Dr. Lile uses the actual instruments of abortion to demonstrate how the procedure is performed at each trimester - including late term partial-birth abortions - without bloody pictures. His simple yet powerful technique is unlike anything you have seen before! (A preview of Dr. Lile's partial birth abortion demonstration can be found below.)

The DVD is a recording of a presentation to high school students. . . . More information on the video can be found at http://www.dyinglight.com. To reach Dr. Lile, go to http://www.prolifedoc.org.

Here is Dr. Lile's presentation on partial birth abortion (non-graphic, but requires maturity to view):

3:53 PM |

The Kids Are Alright

A male friend of mine — 36, handsome, very smart, and witty — would like to meet the right woman and settle down.

There's just one thing: He absolutely doesn't want kids.

It's a dealbreaker, and it greatly complicates his efforts. Many a relationship of his has disbanded because his girlfriend had initially said she was fine with having no kids, but then changed her mind. The girlfriend had never really thought about motherhood until then, or she'd been denying her own desire for motherhood all along.

As for the women who truly shared his desire for childlessness, none of those relationships have worked out. As far as I can tell from what he's told me, at least part of the reason for that is because every one of those women has been dysfunctional in some way.

I should mention that I'm one of them.

It's only been within the past couple of years — since my breakup with that happily childless gent — that I've been able to imagine being a mom. That's still a step from actually wanting to be one, but it's getting there.

For all I know, there may well be a woman or women who are simply not emotionally hardwired for motherhood. Likewise, it would not shake my faith to learn that there exists a vibrantly healthy and dynamic woman who shares my faith — and who is not a nun — fails to desire children.

I do believe that I am far from the only woman whose resistance to motherhood stems from a sense of brokenness, which in turn is due to a damaged understanding of the family. In my case, I come from a broken home. That saddled me as a young child with a tremendous amount of cynicism about families and relationships in general, which I continue to work through and consider with prayer.

The rise in divorce in the late 20th century — which neatly parallels the advent of oral contraception and the legalization of abortion — amplified modern society's message that children are neither important enough to spark a couple to marry, nor valuable enough to cause a married couple to stay together.

Children are viewed as property today in a fundamentally different way than in the days when they were expected to work on the family farm. Human eggs are bought and sold. Some gay and infertile couples claim a "right" to a child through in vitro fertilization, as though it were an ownership issue; I can buy a Mazda, so who are you to tell me I can't buy a kid?

Feminists have fueled the downgrading of children by insisting that motherhood is a choice that exists in a vacuum — as though women lack any sort of biological drive that might contribute to a decision to have kids. The irony is that feminists are perfectly willing to use biological drives as excuses for behavior that doesn't involve parenting — like having contraceptive-"protected" sex.

Biological connections to parental behavior are not limited to women. In recent years, many studies have pointed to biochemical factors that inspire paternal behavior as well.

I lived most of my adult life in a world where the only truth was that of our postmodern, postfeminist culture. It says, "You don't have to be a mother, therefore you should not feel pressured in any way to be a mother, therefore you should not be a mother if you can help it, because it will prevent you from being able to choose. The meaning of life is in our choices, and those choices can only be made if you are free from the ties of a husband — who would probably leave you anyway — and children."

I am choosing to wake up now. Thank God!

12:20 AM |

Wednesday, April 19, 2006

Welcome to the Working Weak

The abortion movement has its roots in the false ideal that women are by nature entirely self-sufficient, with no organic need for a husband, let alone a child.

It is feminists' fear of weakness that, with a sad irony, weakens them — by making them not only fear bonds of love and blood, but seek to convince others that such ties equal chains.

There's no shame in weakness, vulnerability, or incompleteness. No one in this life is ever complete. It's the awareness of our incompleteness that enables us to strive upwards.

"You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it rests in you," writes St. Augustine. And in Psalm 51, David says, "The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise."

Likewise, the Bible says nothing about man's or woman's being "complete." Our completion is only in God, and only in the future, as David writes in Psalm 16: "Thou wilt shew me the path of life: in thy presence is fulness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore."

In this life, the only relief for this sense of longing that is built into us is through love, and love by definition is forever. "We have come to know and to believe in the love God has for us. God is love, and whoever remains in love remains in God and God in him," writes the Apostle John (1 John 4:16).

More and more, I see the propagation of abortion and contraception as a means of separating women, in the name of independence and liberation, from their own need to give unconditional love to a child and to a husband.

"My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness," said God to St. Paul.

Admitting our own weakness is essential, not because such weakness strengthens us on our own, but because it strengthens us in God's love. In preventing a woman from being conscious of her own weakness, abortion supporters ultimately prevent her from being open to the great love that's available to her from a husband, from potential children, and from the Lord.

3:39 AM |

Habit Your Way

Check out today's Big Town, Big Heart, in which I singlehandedly edit Josh Max's excellent story about a nun who runs a mobile soup kitchen and write a main headline that references ABBA, and write a secondary headline that references the Who.

P.S. "Tom and Mom" on the front page was mine. Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all week.

3:04 AM |

Tuesday, April 18, 2006

Congratulations! You Just Bought Your Teen an Oral-Sex Video!

Did you just pay your state and federal taxes? Good for you! Thanks to taxpayers' generous funding, Planned Parenthood Golden Gate can afford to make an MTV commercial depicting a young girl going down on her boyfriend under the sheets.

Perhaps this is PPGG President Dian Harrison's revenge against those bloggers and news organizations who exposed her organization's notorious animated video, "A Superhero for Choice," last August. In the face of public outrage over the cartoon, which portrayed a pro-choice "superhero" blowing up peaceful pro-lifers, PPGG removed "A Superhero for Choice" from its Web site.

Below are details of the new commercial, straight from PPGG's Web site, which also enables readers to view the ad online. Note Harrison's use of Planned Parenthood code words and phrases like "safety," "prevention," and wanting to "reduce the need for abortion." In other words, it's perfectly OK to encourage teenagers to dive into bed with one another, as long as the goal is to prevent their getting pregnant. Never mind that, by the Planned Parenthood-affiliated Alan Guttmacher Institute's own statistics, 54% of all abortions are performed on women who used contraception in the month when they conceived.

From PPGG's site:

In order to connect as many youth as possible with reproductive health services and information, PPGG has designed an outreach campaign that includes advertising on MySpace.com, KMEL radio and MTV. It is PPGG�s goal to help teens and young adults make educated, responsible decisions when it comes to their sexuality and reproductive health.

�Our goal at Planned Parenthood is to reach as many teens and young adults as possible with our safe is sexy message,� said Dian Harrison, President and CEO of Planned Parenthood Golden Gate. �We encourage everyone, including elected officials, to support access to family planning and comprehensive, medically accurate sexuality education in order to reduce the need for abortion. Prevention is what this campaign is all about.�

Our youth friendly ads focus on safety and prevention. The MTV spot, which starts airing April 15, depicts a responsible, young couple that practices safe sex. It begins with a young woman working with power tools in a hard-hat zone. A female voice-over states, "My father always told me to use the right tool for the right job." At the end of the day she returns home to find her hard-hat wearing boyfriend already under the covers. She tosses her own hard-hat aside and pulls off her coveralls, stripping down to a "Safe is Sexy" tank top, shorts style underpants and a tool belt. She dives across the bed for her safe sex toolbox, which is well stocked with colorful condoms, courtesy of Planned Parenthood. The ad closes with a shot of the safe sex toolbox and the same female voice-over saying, "Nice tool!"

Actually, she says, "Ooh, nice tool!"

As for diving across the bed, she dives all right ...

She crouches . . . she leaps . . .

And down she goes — with her giggling face right where her boyfriend's penis would be.

Somehow, she manages to stretch her arm all the way over to the toolbox and open it . . .

...where she finds a candy-colored assortment of condoms, fur handcuffs, oral contraceptives, a rubber glove (perhaps left over from her construction job), and one of those squeezy things used by office workers to stave off carpal-tunnel syndrome.

That'll give the 12-year-olds who watch MTV something to think about.

And just think, you enabled Planned Parenthood Golden Gate to produce this ad and put it on the air. After all, by the organization's own 2004 annual report, 53% of its annual income comes from government funds and contracts. The report's no longer online, but the data may be verified via the organization's IRS form at Guidestar.org, plus it's laid out neatly in this graphic that I copied from the annual report when I exposed "A Superhero for Choice":

That taxpayer money is fungible — having it frees PPGG to spend more money on advertising than it would be able to otherwise.

If you don't want to see the money you just sent to Uncle Sam go to exposing young children to this trash, go to StopPlannedParenthoodTaxFunding.com and add your name to the petition. Then write or call your senators, your representatives, and local officials to make sure they get the message.
1:12 AM |

Monday, April 17, 2006

Leaf Encounter

On Holy Thursday, a perfect sunny day, I took two underground trains to make it to the Church of Notre Dame in upper Manhattan at noon. There, in a short and lovely ceremony, a fellow Protestant catechumen and I recited the Nicene Creed together, and then we each made a profession of faith before Father Jacek Buda:

I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God.

During the ceremony, Father Buda shared with us Father Richard John Neuhaus's message to his Protestant friends, in which he said that entering the Church brought him closer to Christ and therefore closer to his friends in Christ.

Afterwards, I made my first confession. Then I walked back out into the sunlight, with over six hours and several errands to go before my First Communion.

I took the No. 1 down to my workplace, picked up my paycheck, took my malfunctioning cell phone to the shop, and took another train to get home. Walking to my apartment from the station, I noticed the hardware store had put a selection of planters and dirt outside. I'd been meaning to move my lone plant, a rubber tree, to a bigger home, so I bought a planter and the smallest bag of dirt they had.

I felt kind of silly as I made the purchase. I have never had a green thumb. My rubber tree had been foisted upon me for free by a Korean grocer who barely speaks English, after I'd complimented him on his pretty display of greenery.

The grocer, Park, who looks to be about 60, is an Evangelical, something I discovered a while back when I spotted him reading the Bible at his cash register one night. After I told him that I was a Christian too, he decided to take it upon himself to remind me, every time I entered his store, that I should go to church.

It's amazing. He can hardly put five words together in English, yet he is able to nag me quite effectively at every opportunity. I'll walk in and he'll say, "Did you go to church? No? No good. Six days, work. Sunday, God's day."

(That was before my acceptance into the Church, mind you. I fully realize that my profession means my days of Saturday-night/Sunday-morning nonobservance are behind me forever.)

Since my rubber tree was due to Park's Christian charity, I had to keep it, but I gave it only the most grudging care. Even so, it insisted on sprouting new leaves all over the place, until it basically demanded a larger pot.

And so, I walked into my apartment Thursday afternoon, all confessed up, and immediately proceeded to transplant my tree. I poured the new dirt into the new pot, dug out the only rubber glove I could find, and scooped the plant out of its little planter. It came out with all the old dirt stuck to it in a planter-sized mass, so that I couldn't even see its roots.

A nagging feeling told me that if I were a good gardener, I'd take off all the old dirt. But I didn't want to damage the roots, so I put the plant with its whole soil-encased mass into the planter, pouring some more dirt over its base. I figured that even with the old dirt, it would still soak in nutrients from the new soil that surrounded it.

I thought as I did all this about how it was a bit corny to move the plant on the day of my reception into the Catholic faith — thinking of the parable about the seeds falling on good soil — but I didn't think much more of it. And yes, I also thought of "High Hopes" (groan).

The transplanted tree looked happy.

Later that night, I headed back up to Notre Dame for the Holy Thursday service and my First Communion.

Towards the beginning of the service, the choir sang a hymn in Latin — I can't remember which one — that mentioned seed. It might have been "Pange Lingua," which has a line that translates to, "He, as Man, with man conversing, stayed, the seeds of truth to sow ..."

Whatever it was, it struck me deeply.

I realized that I am like that rubber plant. The plant was given me by a Protestant; likewise, I was baptized by a Protestant pastor and was encouraged in my Christian faith by many others of that faith.

The plant flourished in a hostile environment, as my faith has grown even though I have been outside a church for most of the time I have been Christian. Finally, it needed better soil and a bigger planter.

Like that plant, as I enter the Catholic Church, my world is not becoming smaller. It's becoming far bigger, in every way.

But what really touched me was thinking about the dirt and the roots. I come into the Church with a lot of dirt around my roots — the dirt of old experiences and old ways of thinking.

If Jesus wanted, He could shake that dirt off; He can do anything. But He hasn't purged me of all the thoughts, memories, and behaviors that marked me before I made my profession — because He doesn't want to damage my roots.

My roots are in both Judaism and Protestantism. They helped provide the sustenance that enabled me to reach this season. I may wish they didn't come with so much baggage. But Jesus is giving me so much new soil, and so many new nutrients with it, that His message has every opportunity to reach me despite my mental and spiritual obstacles. As a result, with God's grace, I have the opportunity to attain a rich life in Christ as He takes everything that has made me who I am and transforms it for His glory.

This little plant praises Him. With high-apple-pie-in-the-sky hopes.
3:32 AM |

Sunday, April 16, 2006

Sex and the Pity

[12/21/06: GREETINGS, SALON READERS! You're reading an old Dawn Patrol item that I wrote very late one night, many moons ago. My more recent blog entries are more reflective of my current views. Also, the theological topics I mention in this post come across better (and minus the bloggy snark) in my book; check out this online excerpt.]

Jill of the group blog Feministe comments on one of the "Dawn Eden Takedown" posts of which that site is so fond:

I actually feel bad for Dawn. And I�m not saying that in a condescending way, I really do mean it. . . . The one thing she seems to want more than anything is a husband, and for whatever reason that hasn�t worked out for her. Can you imagine putting all of your energy into doing things (like abstaining from sex) for a future mate, only to never find one?

There's an interesting leap of logic there:

Lady X's foremost desire is to be married.
Lady X puts all her energy into fulfilling her desire.
Lady X has never found a husband.
Lady X will never find a husband.

If I believed that was my story, I would find it quite sad too. But it's not, for two reasons. I believe Jill will appreciate one of those reasons if she's reasonable. The other goes against everything I've read by her and her sex-positive/babies-negative crowd.

The first and obvious answer to Jill's assertions is that I might meet my future husband tomorrow. Upon our marriage, he and I might honestly be able to say that the self-restraint we practiced before marriage did more than fill us with desire; it increased our appreciation for the meaning and beauty of marital sex.

One might argue that such an outcome wouldn't be true of everyone who abstained from premarital sex. But if my husband and I honestly believed that it was true in our case, no one could reasonably dispute our experience.

All that is hypothetical, I realize — but no more hypothetical than assuming that a 37-year-old woman whom one's never met will never, ever get married.

The other reason Jill's story is not mine is in her rhetorical question, "Can you imagine putting all of your energy into doing things (like abstaining from sex) for a future mate, only to never find one?"

Let's be frank: The real question here is, "Can you imagine abstaining from sex only to never have a husband?"

This may be reduced to another logical sequence:

Good sex is essential to enjoyment of life.
Good sex does not require a partner who makes a lifetime commitment.
Good sex is so important that one's decision whether or not to have it defines one's entire identity and purpose in life. "Can you imagine putting all of your energy into doing things (like abstaining from sex)..."
Therefore, a person who refrains from having good sex for lack of a lifetime commitment is unimaginably, pathetically, tragically deprived. When she is on her deathbed, she will realize that she has wasted precious opportunities for joy.

I remember, back when I used to have crushes on rock musicians, reading Pamela DesBarres' I'm With the Band and wishing I could be like her and the rest of her "Plaster Casters" gang. What I admired was that they could follow creative, sexy rockers and sleep with them, yet shed their conquests so easily.

I wasn't like that. If I had sex with a man, even a one-night stand, I always risked attaching to him to the point that I would pine for him.

I tried different tactics, like the hippie-type bonding, where my sex partner and I would act kind and loving to one another, saying we'd always be friends no matter what physically "happened" between us. It didn't work; he'd eventually move on to the next "buddy" (or "new special friend," to use Tony Hendra's wonderful term from "This Is Spinal Tap") and I would feel empty.

Knowing that I would be hurt, I eventually tried to avoid giving too much of myself emotionally in the first place. The result remained unsatisfying. I might have a fun evening, but afterward I would still be alone, only more conscious of my loneliness than before.

The fun wasn't worth the separation. Perhaps it is for Jill, and that's why she advocates having sex without love — and why she's so frightened by the thought of dying without having taken the opportunity to have loveless sex. For I believe that love, by definition, lasts forever — so marital love is the only true sexual love that a man and woman can express to one another. Anything else sexual is not love.

Growing into an old spinster used to indeed be my greatest fear. I used to believe that, if I knew that I would never get married, I would kill myself. This was before I had knowledge of Christ, when I suffered from depression and believed that if God did exist, He didn't care about me.

Today, my perspective has nearly reversed. (I say "nearly," because the suicidal aspect's thankfully disappeared.) The agon comes not from certainty, but from agnosticism. If I am to be single for life, I wish I could know it now. It would be wonderful to be able to plan out the rest of my life without having to leave a husband-sized gap just in case.

And — here's the thing — if I weren't getting married, I would still be chaste.

It's who I am.

I love this thing that God created called sex. Absolutely love it. And I love it so much that I will no longer accept any substitutes for the real thing, the way it was meant to be.

Put it this way: Suppose you discovered sushi for the first time and fell in love with the taste of it — except the only sushi place you knew was a really cheap place that left the raw fish out so long that you got food poisoning every time you ate it.

And suppose you knew, from billions of trustworthy reports, as well as a voice that was in your heart, that somewhere out there was a phenomenal sushi restaurant, the best ever, that — wonder of wonders — wouldn't make you sick?

Would you keep eating the delicious but sickening sushi, knowing that the more you ate it, the harder it would be to forget its sickening aftereffects once you had the real sushi?

Maybe you would. Maybe you'd tell yourself that's better to enjoy superficial pleasure that poisons you, then to hold out for the elusive real thing and risk never having even the superficial pleasure.

Contrary to Jill's logic, I believe that there is a pleasure in this world that includes sex, and yet is greater than the greatest sex.

I wish to God that I knew whether or not I'll experience it. Either way, my life is filled with meaning and beauty, and — often — joy. For all that, I thank the Lord.

We are troubled on every side, yet not distressed; we are perplexed, but not in despair;

Persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed;

Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body.

For we which live are always delivered unto death for Jesus' sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh.

So then death worketh in us, but life in you.

We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak;

Knowing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus, and shall present us with you.

For all things are for your sakes, that the abundant grace might through the thanksgiving of many redound to the glory of God.

For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day.

For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory;

While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

3:05 AM |

Saturday, April 15, 2006

In His Steps

Caravaggio, The Entombment
(click on picture for larger image)
Just before 8 p.m. last night, I arrived at St. Patrick's Old Cathedral, on Mott Street in lower Manhattan, for the annual "Way of the Cross" procession through downtown.

The event was organized by Geoff Gentile, one-half of the RCIA team at the Church of Our Saviour. He's in his 20s, and most of the 80 or so people who showed up on that rainy evening looked to be in their 20s and 30s. The crew included at least one priest, a St. Joseph's seminarian, and a Franciscan friar.

Speaking of the rain, I had bought an umbrella on the way to the meeting place, but right at the point when we did our first Station there outside the old St. Patrick's, the rain stopped. A good sign.

Over the course of four hours, as we did the 14 Stations, we walked through the Lower East Side and the East and West Village — as far east as Tompkins Square Park, as far west as Washington Street, and as far north as Union Square Park. Wherever we went, the wooden cross went first, lifted high by one of the men. A few other participants carried tall torches, which also served to relight walkers' candles. Many walkers carried palm leaves; a few palm leaves were also draped around the cross.

We did the Stations mostly outside churches — Catholic ones — including a Latino church, a Polish one (St. Stanislaus), and one that I think was Slovenian (St. Cyril's). The diversity of ethnic churches within a few square miles was a beautiful reminder of Catholicism's universality.

We did most of the other Stations at parks. At Union Square, we found ourselves beneath a stunning statue on a high pedestal of Mary holding the baby Jesus, with John the Baptist standing by. (I cannot find any mention of this online and would love it if someone could tell me more about it.) I've walked by that spot numerous times , mostly during the years before I was a Christian, and I don't recall ever noticing it before. It's a mysterious reminder of Jesus and His Mother, placed in one of the city's most famously anti-Christian locations (which has hosted countless communist and socialist protests over the years).

We also did one Station, the second, at a place where thousands of innocent people had been killed. It was at Margaret Sanger Square, at the side of Planned Parenthood of New York City's headquarters.

As we walked, we usually sang — "Ave Maria" (a chant, not the song), "Were You There," "Misericordias Domini," "Ubi Caritas," "Salve Regina," "Our Father," and the like.

I was reminded that the Protestants have nearly all the best songs. No Fanny Crosby tunes wafted through the cool evening air, neither was there "And Can It Be" or "Amazing Grace."

On the upside, no one volunteered "Our God Is an Awesome God."

We walked past posters for Madonna's tour, which is called "Confessions." We sang praises to God in Latin as we passed shops with names like The Shape of Lies. We chanted about the Lamb of God when we walked past the satanic-themed Slaughtered Lamb Pub. We sang "Ave Marie" all the way down Christopher Street, past the homosexual cruisers and the display windows of leather and chains.

We also walked past Weinstein dormitory, where I lived for four years when I went to New York University during the late 1980s. We went through the streets where I had been so unhappy as a college student, suffering from depression and believing that if there were a God, He didn't care about me. We proceeded within 100 feet of where a fresh-faced college student handed me a pocket Gideons New Testament back then, which I held onto over the years even though I didn't read it much, and which I finally began reading in earnest in 1999, weeks before I received my long-desired faith.

I felt sad for a moment as I wished I'd learned the beauty of the Church in college and saved myself years of wandering in the wilderness. But then I thought that God must have known what he was doing. Perhaps if I'd entered the Church back then, I wouldn't have had a strong enough foundation to cleave to it. Also, my relationships with some of my family members have deepened since that time; loved ones accept my conversion, who might have distanced themselves from me had I converted back then,

As the procession wound its way through the Village, our songs echoing through the night, I had the distinct feeling that we were bringing salt and light. That, and an unmistable sword.

I had a mental image which had also come to

Search this blog: