My thankful list

Happy Thanksgiving! Here's twenty things I'm celebrating today:

1: I am thankful for the best and oldest friends I have, and for the exceptionally strong relationship I still have with each of them. Even if we don't see each other, or even talk to each other, often, they know. They know.
2: I'm thankful for every bad day I've ever had. I live life more confident, more capable, and more fully because of those hardships.
3: I am so thankful for my ability to work. Bringing income to help support my family, taking care of my home, raising my kids, helping others - all of it is possible because of this oft-forgotten faculty. I pray I never take it for granted.
4: I am grateful that I have been valued throughout my life. I am humbled that I have so many people that have loved me with their protection, provision, mentorship, and sacrifice.
5: I am continually astonished at the privilege of being a mother to two of the most beautiful, intelligent, gentle, loving, funny and wonderful human beings --- ever.
6: I'm thankful for nearly 30 years of watching the seasons change, particularly this month, when I am enjoying my favorite season in my favorite place on the planet. There's nothing like a North Carolina autumn.
7: I'm thankful that I have always had more than enough.
8: I'm thankful for a job that I truly love, learning new things every day, being around people who are a pleasure to work with. After a long and unpleasant job hunt, going to the office every day is a pleasure.
9: There ain't nothing better than being married to Jason Thomas Binkley
10: I am grateful for a healthy body, and a seek to honor God's creation by treating it well (despite my occasional splurge on fried foods)
11: I am thankful for the "cloud of witnesses," the saints, who paved the way for good Christian men and women with impeccable examples of life in Christ. I am grateful for the lives they lived and the intercession they offer.
12: I am grateful for my freedom, particularly of freedom of speech and religion, and thankful to those who sacrificed to make it possible.
13: I'm thankful that I live in a safe place. I sleep deeply, but many can not. This is not lost on me.
14: Honestly, I am thankful every single time my car starts. This has been true even when I drove very reliable vehicles. The stuff under my hood is a great mystery to me, and I just want it to work, ok?
15: I'm thankful that I haven't ever broken the screen of my iphone.  Dumb, but true.
16: I am thankful for those I have lost - every minute with each of you was precious, and I cherish them all.
17: I'm thankful that a group of Irish monks in France worked tirelessly through the middle ages to keep the art of cheesemaking alive. Well done, friends.
18: I'm thankful for my Godchildren. I love watching them grow and praying for them.
19: I'm thankful for a good education, and for the work my parents did to make sure I had it.
20: The cross.

Dear US Army,

Lately, I've experienced a lot of anxiety. My family has exited army life. My "optional income" is a thing of the past, and I am now the primary bread winner. Health insurance, housing, learning to be a civilian - it's all new to us. But then I see a bank statement without "Department of Defense" anywhere on it, and I breath a huge sigh of relief. We are so blessed to be on our own, building a life that finally fits our beliefs and goals.  Don't get me wrong, Army. It was fine while it lasted. But the give and take of our relationship, on it's best day, was at 110% to 30%, respectively. I thank you, earnestly, for the benefits that we received (and are still receiving through the GI Bill), but when I think of the 3 deployments, 8 years away from family, career opportunities, college credit hours, and the mental and physical health that we threw away, I have no regrets. You gave a little, but you took too much. And what did we really contribute to "the cause?" I'm afraid you wouldn't like my answer. I'm afraid we were always just a couple of numbers, easily replaced and hardly accounted for.

I'm determined that it must be over. I need to make my own way, guided by love of God and of family. I do, in fact, love my country, but I simply cannot give any more to a fictional ideal. A standing army is not what this country was designed for, and I'm tired of being dragged along as politicians seek out new wars to fight. I know too many who can't recover - they lost life, limb, and sanity. Sometimes all three. I must get out before I'm among their ranks. The battles that were fought in my marriage, and in my own mind, as a result of the "assignments" my husband received over the past 12 years - they took an irreversible toll. If I'm honest with myself, we were too weak for it, and we barely made it out by providence and ignorant stubborness. And now, believe it or not, we are happy. We are so happy and free. This life is hard, but it's not hard like the life we struggled against inside your system. It's a thinking hard, where wits and patience and love get you through. It's a hard that satisfies.

I don't blame you, Army. You are simply the result of humanity shaped by an historical combination of discipline and violence, violence and discipline - whittled down from a good start to a monstrous finish by a never-ending procession of short-sighted commanders and tired soldiers. It's my fault, for being young and short-sighted myself. I didn't see it, but now that I do, I had no choice but to strike out. I wish you well - I will pray often that your organization can find some sense of a center again. That your institution can become again rooted in the values you force upon your military men and women, but fall so short of every time. And so, to punctuate this brutal correspondence with a ending fitting of my message, I will leave you with your "Army Values," taught from boot camp to battleground throughout your system, but rarely embodied by their teacher. The day when I see evidence that you live these values, I will return to your service. Until then, fare the well.

The Seven Army Values: Loyalty. Duty. Respect. Selfless Service. Honor. Integrity. Personal Courage.

Respectfully,

Semicrunch

Tragedy and Anger: Reflections on the loss in Newtown, Connecticut

I have had so many thoughts about the news from Sandy Hook Elementary School. To try to put yourself in the shoes of those parents who lost their children - it's simply incomprehensible for me. These events, regardless of how often they occur, seem to raise so many questions for those around us. How can we even absorb what happened in Connecticut yesterday? How can we process? How can we go on in a world like this one? What can be done to keep it from happening again? What can be done to keep it from happening to me?

I have seen the media flood with debate on gun control. I have seen facebook and twitter overflowing with anger and fear. It seems that those around me are all trying to cope with the loss of so many young lives and those who served and educated them.

One image that I've seen associated with this event is a sculpture known as the Angel of Grief. The artist, William Wetmore Story, and his wife are buried beneath the original in Rome, but many replicas have appeared throughout the world - 8 in Texas alone (Source: Wikipedia, Angel of Grief). The posture of the angel seems to speak to people in their own grief, and the tragedy of Newtown appears to be no different.

In times when we need answers, Christians turn to the Word of God, the Living God. In Holy Scripture, we find a profound and timely encouragement for today. St. Paul wrote to the Romans, saying:

"Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. Be devoted to one another in love. Honor one another above yourselves...Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn." (Romans 12: 9-10, 14-15)

Hate what is evil. Bless and do not curse. We are so tempted in the humanity of our pain to curse those who caused it, but I try to remind myself that there is only one Enemy - only one who is the source of all evil, and all others are just fallen souls in his hands. They need our prayers, not our anger. They need our blessings, not our curses.

Mourn with those who mourn. Be sincere. I remind myself that though it's natural to reflect this situation onto my own life, asking myself what I can do to prevent such a thing happening to me should not be my first response. We are commanded to love of others with the same weight as we love ourselves (Mt. 22:39) and here, Paul takes it a step further by saying that we should honor others above ourselves. I believe that the apostle is asking us to mourn for others - and to do it sincerely. There is nothing wrong with being precautious, and certainly there is wisdom in learning from history and from mistakes, but Christ himself calls us not to worry: "Can any one of you by worrying add a single hour to your life?" (cf. Mt. 6:25-34).

Inspired by Story's statue and St. Paul's words, I offer up my own artistic contribution. Please feel free to share, if you feel lead.

Forget the gun control debate for now. Forget legislation and justice. There is a time for that. But for now, pray. Mourn. Love. There is only one creature worthy of hate, but there are so many worthy of blessing.

Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse...Mourn with those who mourn.

Daily Mass and the Ascension: Going to church "just because"

19 And the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven and sits on the right hand of God. 20 But they going forth preached every where: the Lord working withal, and confirming the word with signs that followed. (Mk. 16:19-20)

50 And he led them out as far as Bethania: and lifting up his hands, he blessed them. 51 And it came to pass, whilst he blessed them, he departed from them and was carried up to heaven. 52 And they adoring went back into Jerusalem with great joy. 53 And they were always in the temple, praising and blessing God. Amen. (Lk. 24:50-52)

2 until the day on which, giving commandments by the Holy Ghost to the apostles whom he had chosen, he was taken up — 3 to whom also he showed himself alive after his passion, by many proofs, for forty days appearing to them, and speaking of the kingdom of God. (Acts 1:2-3)

Ascension of Christ (Dali)

Church Services for Ascention
This year (and, if I'm not mistaken, every year) in the United States, Roman Catholics celebrate Ascension Thursday on Sunday because the US Conference of Catholic Bishops - USCCB - has moved the Solemnity to Sunday. Normally, this feast day is a Holy Day of Obligation, meaning that Catholics treat it as we would (read: should) every Sunday, by attending Mass and refraining from work and unnecessary activities that detract the day's holy nature. Why is the celebration moved? I have heard the explanation that Holy Days of Obligation are often moved to Sunday in the US to consolidate two days of obligatory Mass into one. Thus, the faithful are not obliged to attend Mass more than once that week. Since it's a big no-no (cardinal sin) to miss Mass, it's important that the Church is clear that you aren't required to attend on Thursday. There are, of course, days that you are required to attend church outside of Sunday (most seem centered around Christmas and Easter), but it seems that for many of these feasts, the USCCB makes an effort to move the obligation and make it easier for parishioners to meet the expectation.

Attending when you don't have to
I was blessed to be able to attend a daily Mass on Thursday, and I do mean blessed. My return to work has allowed me that little freedom. It is a true pleasure to go to Mass during the week! I've spent nearly 3 year struggling through Sunday Mass with little one(s), unable to focus on anything other than keeping them still and quiet. Often, I wondered why I was even there - I didn't hear the homily, I didn't remember the readings, and my hurried prayer to confess sins seemed (though I was assured otherwise) insufficient to allow me communion. It was knowing that my family's presence was still of great benefit to us that kept me in the pew each Sunday - all the way through the recession (I think it's important to thank the host of a dinner party and not just bolt out as soon as dessert is over). 


As time progressed, I saw fruit from "muscling through" each week. My older child has grown accustomed to the quiet discipline (or at least semi-discipline) that Mass requires, and I believe that her weekly exposure to the experience is credited, at least in part, for the obvious influence of Christ in her life. At only 3 years old, she talks about Jesus multiple times of day without being prompted, is greatly comforted by prayer, and can recognize Christ, Mary, and St. Michael in paintings. It's also helpful for me to remember that the trials of going through church are refining for my character and soul, since being a mother is my greatest calling, even my vocation from God.

Traditional Ascension Icon

Why go to Church in the first place?
It's a very popular idea that we should "get something out of going to church." The notion of "being fed" by the content of a worship service is a wonderful one, but I earnestly believe it is not a deal breaker. Yes, we should be fed (Jn 21:15), but we do not worship for us. We worship for Him. If you are going to a Sanctuary to receive, there is a real element of selflessness missing from your relationship with God.

I say all this to point out that I went to church, even when the entire time was spend bouncing from pew to cry room to parking lot, tending crying infants or fetching my little pony from three rows up or worrying about the incessant ruckus. I'm glad I went. But man, it's nice to go to daily Mass while my sweet, wonderful, boisterous babies are in daycare.

The real blessing of worship
So often, I take these little things for granted. It's easy to do - very human, very natural. Thank God that he reminds me of the value of those small blessings in subtle ways. I know that, this week, I was not obliged to go to Mass on Thursday, but wow - it was really a pleasure to go anyway.



Sources:

1. "All About Ascension Day," ChurchYear.net, http://www.churchyear.net/ascension.html.
2. "Home," United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, http://www.usccb.org/.
3. "Feast of the Ascension," Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01767b.htm.

The Vote of 2012: Education

“As those first responsible for the education of their children, parents have the right to choose a school for them that corresponds to their own convictions. This right is fundamental. As far as possible parents have the duty of choosing schools that will best help them in their task as Christian educators. Public authorities have the duty of guaranteeing this parental right and of ensuring the concrete conditions for its exercise” (CCC 2229)

School Choice. This is something that some Catholic leaders have chosen to support, and today I'm going to try to find out if I agree. Despite Catholic schooling being much cheaper than most secular private schools, there are still those who cannot afford to send their children to be educated in the parochial system. And more and more, I can see how a family that truly lives in the counter culture that is the Church would want their kids anywhere but public school.

A Voucher for your Thoughts?

Who pays for our public schools? Everyone. Those with children, those without, those who are also paying private school tuition and those who are using the public school system. I understand the idea - if we expect only the parents of children in public schools to bear the burden of that cost, either the system would come to a screaming halt or thousands upon thousands of children would go unschooled. Or both.

But on the other hand, what if those parents who choose to school their children in a private or parochial school receive an exemption, since that have removed the cost of their own families from the burden of the state? Or, take that a step further. What if parents who choose an option other than public schools were given the option of a voucher to apply toward a school of their choice, be it Catholic, Communal, Montessori, Homeschool, Spanish-speaking, etc. Essentially, all citizens pay taxes to educate the nation, but when it comes time for them to cash in on those funds, they can elect to withdraw from that account to pay for schooling outside the state or federally funded schools.

I am not the first to think of this. In fact, I didn't come up with it at all. It's an old idea, so I'm sure that the wanderings of my thoughts on this subject are equally as mundane and unoriginal. Yet, I wonder. Wouldn't that kind of "voucher system" stimulate economic growth and healthy competition between private schools, lower tuition costs, and remove a lot of the burden on a heavily-loaded state school system?

And then there's the issue of philosophical and religious freedom. That isn't dead yet is it? What if I don't want my child to be taught evolution, or sex ed, or history the way that it is taught in public schools. What if the teachings of the state system go fundamentally against what I am working my butt off to teach my kids. Isn't that my freedom? Doesn't the burden of education fall on the parent, not the state? So yeah, pull 'em out. Keep 'em home. I have many friends who homeschool, many who send their kids to a wide array of private schools with a spectrum of philosophical strategies. But they are still paying for their kids (and every one else's) to go to school.

I believe that this system was born out of the best intention: to give every child the right to an education. But one size fits all is not a true fit for anyone.

Church and State: You gotta keep 'em separated?

There is a long-standing argument that the government cannot provide a stipend for parents to fund religiously-based education because it is a violation of the separation of church and state. But what about the children of my friends who attend The Circle School, a wonderful family cooperative school here in San Antonio? That school has no religious affiliation whatsoever, but it does teach a particular philosophy. Their mission statement reads, "The Circle School's mission is to foster and encourage each child's awareness and respect for her/his own unique self within a framework of shared community ethics and knowledge." That's not religion, but it certainly is a way of thinking. Is it a church? No. But technically, the objections that those arguing for a violation of separation of church and state would have the same guff with these guys. This leads me to a quote from the Catholic Advocate:

"...If the voucher system is limited only to public schools and non-sectarian private schools, the majority of private schools will be left out of the mix. Furthermore, most non-sectarian private schools are well beyond the financial reach of parents, even those who receive government subsidies. So, in essence, a voucher program that excludes parochial schools is really a public school program. For reasons already discussed, this is not much of a choice for those Catholic parents who are concerned with the direction of public education." Source

What's so bad about Public School?

I'm still not sure about all this, but I know that I don't like a lot of the things I was taught in my public school days. When I recall the information I was taught in biology, in civics, even in drivers ed, and compare it to what I know now as an adult, I'm pretty disappointed, and I went to one of the best public high schools in our nation (ranked #7 in the US the year after I graduated). Despite all the attempts to provide a broad-based, unbiased education, I was taught some things that were downright propoganda. Weren't you? Can't you think of something you learned that was blatantly untrue, or weren't allowed to do that was a violation of your rights?

I don't think that it's avoidable. Education will always be biased. Raising children is, in the worst light, propaganda and brainwashing. BE HONEST. It all is. From the first time you tell a one year old baby No until the moment they start thinking for themselves, children are being formed by our opinions and the actions that they fuel. We cannot create an unbiased educational environment, so we must protect our liberties and allow parents to educate their children in the system that best meets their morals and standards.

Another flaw? Neighborhood and income level influences our education. As I said, I went to a wonderful high school. My husband's education was atrocious. The school, overwhelmed by discipline and attendance issues, was little more than a bad babysitting center. The difference? The neighborhoods we grew up in. My high school was populated with the children of the old-money part of a large southern city. His was full of the townies of a low-income area in a military town. That entire school system is so bad that his mother has chosen to send his younger brother to one of the only private schools in the area, a non-denominational Christian school. For his family, that is the only real choice.
I don't know much about what causes the blatant unbalance in situations like this, but I do know that my brother in law is lucky that his parents can afford to send him elsewhere. For my husband and his sister, they simply had to make do and, to put it bluntly, try not to get shot between classes.

I also have a big objection to what I see as a confusion between freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion. If my daughter wants to pray over her food before she eats in the school cafeteria, and even visibly cross herself, that's her freedom. If you don't like it, don't look. She's not making you pray. I know that this is an ongoing battle, and I'm so thankful for those standing up for our liberties, but I fear our culture has gone too far toward freedom from religion in public schools, and that my young children will not have any rights to practice their faith in a public school system. I hope I'm wrong. In the meantime, I'll support a system where I can choose a different school for them, even if I'm not wealthy.

Conclusion

So far, I think a voucher system, to include parochial and philosophically-based schools, is genius. Maybe it would eventually eliminate the need for public school. Wouldn't that be a yoke worth throwing for our poor overburdened states? Either way, even though I know I need to think holistically, I must say that I love this idea for me. Our income makes it impossible to pay for even Catholic school, and I fear that I would be a poor teacher for my girls at home. How about you? Would you like to see something like this?

The Vote of 2012: An Aside

When I posted my first blog in this short series, I got a little bit of backlash. Not of my writing or ideas, but of someone else's. The criticism was of the original idea that inspired the post. Where did the idea for the 5 Non-Negotiables come from, and what were the criteria were for deciding on them? Why was it that the first four, issues of "honoring life from conception to natural death," were unbending, but other issues of life, specifically the death penalty and war, were not? Isn't it hypocritical to value life in some instances, like abortion, but not in others, like war?

I think it's important to take a moment to address these comments here before I continue with my original plan for this series. I'll let these documents speak for themselves. As for my opinion on the subject, I understand the objection. They make a very compelling argument, and truth be told I was all but convinced. But after additional research, I am sticking to my guns. Here's what I found:

The idea of the 5 NNs originated from the book A Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics, published by the group called Catholic Answers Action. You can find the original publication in it's (rather short) entirety at this site. But to answer the issue brought up by my readers, I need only quote a few paragraphs.

This excerpt comes from the Appendix of the 2006 version of this publication. It was a late addition to the text, after some controversy with a liberal Catholic organization after the 2004 publishing. For a more complete history, read the section of this Wikipedia article called "The Voter's Guide Controversy." Suffice to say that this appendix was created to counter the criticisms of this and other groups.

"This voter's guide focuses on five non-negotiable issues. These were selected because they involve principles that never admit of exceptions and because they are currently being debated in U.S. politics, giving voters the opportunity to influence these issues... Some issues allow for a diversity of opinion, and Catholics are permitted leeway in endorsing or opposing particular policies. This is the case with the questions of when to go to war and when to apply the death penalty. Though the Church urges caution regarding both of these issues, it acknowledges that the state has the right to employ them in some circumstances." (emphasis added)

The guide references two passages from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. CCC 2309 discusses the strict terms under which a nation could wage just war. It also stresses the importance of prudential judgement on such an issue. CCC 2267 states that in the case of an unquestionably guilty party and when lethal means are the only sure way to "defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor," there could be "recourse to the death penalty." On the other hand, it quotes the Blessed Pope John Paul II in saying that these exceptions are"are very rare, if not practically non-existent."

It also includes a quote from Pope Benedict XVI (when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger)

"While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel and aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia." 

And with this, I leave the 5 NNs behind. They will not be my focus for the rest of the series - as I said before, I plan to move forward with discussions on education, taxation, poverty, immigration and the enviroment. All of these fall into the category of "wiggle room." To finish cleanly, I feel compelled to say that this is one of those posts I didn't want to write. I didn't want to disagree with the people making these comments - one of them I call "Daddy," and little girls NEVER want to think anything but the best of dad. But, out of obligation to anyone out there who might be listening, I wanted to put up what I found. And, of course, it was important for me too. I'm doing this to find where I stand - that's the whole point. I know that Dad doesn't mind if I disagree with him. After all, he raised me to question authority. :-)

The Vote of 2012: Introduction

Yes, I'm still on this subject. But last time I wrote, I addressed it from a personal, introspective angle. This time, I'd like to offer more information than opinion and stick with a decidedly Roman Catholic Christian perspective.

Thanks to the urging of a very conservative friend (yes, I have those too!), I was pushed into investigating the "issues" again this morning. She pointed out something called "The Five Non-Negotiables" of the Church: Abortion, Euthanasia, Fetal Stem Cell Research, Human Cloning, and Same-Sex Marriage. The basic concept is that to go against what the Church thinks on these 5 things is to put your vote in a non-Catholic hat. I'm sure there are those that would take issue with that, but it's not a judgement. You may certainly disagree with the Church on these ideas, but the fact remains: You may be a Catholic, but if you agree with any of the five, you are not voting like a Catholic.

Luckily for me, I agree. In fact, I made certain I was on that band wagon before I began my journey to become a Catholic in August 2009. I would not have even set foot on this road without being in agreement with these basic concepts - to do otherwise would be, I believed, hypocritical. Obviously, the first 4 Non-Negotiables stem from the same root: the belief that life, and therefore for personal rights, begins at conception and ends with natural death. They are, all four, logical inferences that follow from the concept that were are "created equal" and "endowed with certain unalienable rights by our creator," from the very moment that science tells us that life begins  until our bodies succumb naturally to death.

The fifth Non-Negotiable is hard for me still. I have come to believe that Marriage is the beginning of Family, in the same way that Seed is the beginning of Plant: a seed that cannot ever become a plant is, by definition, not a seed. Still, it's difficult for me to deny a homosexual person the right to a civil union, since that is not a "marriage."* Even if a civil union is permitted, there is little advantage to this aside from cheaper health insurance and simple tax returns. I don't think this is what advocates for homosexual marraige are after. A compromise, in this case, would not satisfy either side.

In my motivated researching frenzy this morning, I found this site. The overarching site has a very Conservative Catholic perspective, of which I am not too fond, but this particular document takes it's cues directly from the appropriate Papal Encyclicals, and makes major efforts to point out the subjects that are "non-negotiable" and the issues that are a matter of "prudent judgement." In other words, it tells you where Catholics can disagree without compromising what the Church sees as Christ's teachings.

While reading through this publication, I discovered several points that I am going to elaborate on. These are issues of interest for me, specifically because of the things that matter most for my life. I would encourage you to look through the document and find what matters to you. As I told my friend who originally sent me on my research rant,

"I'm researching like crazy, and for the first time in a while it's exciting me instead of frustrating me. It's so encouraging to read Catholic documents and find that I either already agree with the teaching, or that it easily refines some conflicting thoughts I had on a subject. In other words, Jesus for president!"

My future posts, inspired by this personal study, will (hopefully) include:

• Education
• Taxation
• Poverty
• Immigration
• The Enviroment

Thanks, reader. Just knowing that you'll read this always makes me work harder to make sure I stand on solid ground.

*Note: Clarification on the subject of Marriage and Family: Just as I am against same-sex marriage, I am equally against married couples that choose to remain persistently childless, separation/divorce and pre-marital cohabitation. Many close friends and family fall into these categories, and in fact I have been in two (nearly three) of these situations myself. Don't confuse my beliefs with a holier than thou approach, for as St. Paul said, "I am chief among sinners." This is the great equalizer - sin brings me to the level of those I am so different from. It reminds me that I can never be superior to any man or woman. We all fall short.

**Update!**

I got a lot of comments on this blog about the 5 non-negotiables. Readers wanted to know who picked them and why. They had some legit complaints, and I researched their answers and wrote The Vote of 2012: An Aside to answer their concerns.

Selective Prejudice

It's amazing to me the level of discrimination you can get away with against certain groups. For example, if someone refers to a 17 year old black male as "boy," the historical context makes the statement incredibly cruel and prejudice (and rightly so). But on the other hand if one calls a 35 year old white male a "cracker," few people even understand that this statement refers to a whip-cracker, aka a foreman - the often white, often poor men hired by land owners in the old south to manage their slaves with force and dehumanization. Most people, if asked, know that "boy" is a term that historically kept a slave in his place, a subservient and inferior piece of property. No wonder it's a hurtful term. But very few people when asked would have any idea that "cracker" is essentially calling the white man a heartless monster. Why? I would argue that because of the unending injustice that has been done to african-americans through the practice of slavery, we have all made ourselves sensitive to their understandable needs for equality and respect. A white man, on the other hand, has never been a part of such a large group that was so clearly discriminated against. Because he belongs to the majority, his feelings need not be treated with the same delicacy. Is this selective prejudice really fair?

I present, for your analysis, that there is a large, long-standing institution that has also become the victim of selective prejudice. Just as a white man is assumed to be immune from wrongful opinion, the Catholic Church currently exists in a time of extreme and unfounded prejudice against her. There are many reasons, the greatest of which happens from within. Her own children rarely follow her precepts (3 out of 4 Catholics don't go to Mass weekly, and only 1 in 10 follow the church's teaching on artificial birth control), making them terrible representatives of their faith. On the outside, there are misconceptions and historical prejudices galore. Evangelical protestants in America came to this country to seek freedom from tradition, automatically pitting them against a large hierarchy (literally: "holy order"). Protestants, in the days of Luther and Calvin were in accord with Catholics on the issues that they find themselves at odds over today (infant baptism, elevation of the status of Mary Mother of God, transsubstantiation). Today, however, protestant churches teach that they could not be more different than Catholics on these same issues, as though their founders made a move away from the Church for these very reasons.

The misunderstandings and outright lies that are perpetuated about the Church are innumerable, even today. I stumbled across this article entitled "What Presbyterians don't believe" when a childhood friend of mine, now the wife of a Presbyterian Minister, posted it on Facebook. I read through it, thinking it would tell me more about Presbyterian dogma, and found instead that it is simply a list of why Presbyterians are not Roman Catholic. It's also filled with deep misunderstandings of what Catholic's actually believe. For example, there is a discussion of why it's wrong to pray to Mary and the Saints, citing that prayer is an act of worship, and therefore should be directed only to God. This is a limited and (in my opinion) superstitious view of prayer. Prayer is not worship. It is communication. As the article itself explains, praying to a Saint is no different than turning to your friend in the pew next to you and asking that he prays for you on a particular issue in your life. When you kneel at your bed at night, you are not worshiping your bed. When you ask your friend to keep your husband in their thoughts and prayers while he is ill, you are not elevating your friend to the status of God. This strikes me as a shallow, irrational and almost-medieval way of thinking of the gift of prayer. If a person's soul is eternal, logic tells us our ability to request their prayer and counsel also goes on. Let's not complicate, or worse - make the mistake of overly elevating, the power of this kind of prayer. Only God is God, and the Saints will never be worthy of worship.

Much like St. Paul, I must refer to myself as "chief among sinners." I get so upset about the false perceptions about Catholicism because they were once my own. A protestant for 10 years, I believed what I was told by ministers and bible study teachers about Catholics without bothering to investigate. And I, of all people, should have investigated. Two generations back in my family there were a host of Catholics, both from birth and through conversion. Only recently in my family tree did a lapse in practice result in a lapse in faith. In my husband's family, it's the same story, as with so many of our families: good Catholic grandparents were not prepared by pre-Vatican II catechism to strengthen their children against the dangers of an increasingly liberal and secular world, leaving a generation of confused and lapsed Catholics to raise our generation. I refer to this as Vatican II growing pains.

But when our first child was born, my husband set out to find a true faith, instead of the non-denominational Christianity we had practiced, believing that "not everyone can be right." His journey brought him right back to the doors of the Church. I was appalled; I was resistant; I want to destroy his rosary and rip those blasphemous extra books out of his new bible. But, praise God, out of love for him, I began to study and read and reflect. I discovered a disturbing truth. From the outside it appears that our parents wised up and properly distanced themselves from the false practices of an antiquated Church, but almost all of what is told to good Protestant Christians about Catholicism is at best an oversimplification, and at worst an elaborate lie that repels the listener from the original, universal church of Christ. In April of 2010, my family returned to the faith of our grandparents. I know what it's like to believe the worst of Catholics. The reality is, as Bishop Fulton J. Sheen said, "Not 100 in the United States hate the Roman Catholic Church, but millions hate what they mistakenly think the Roman Catholic Church is."

I write this not to convert but to defend. My allegiance to the Church was purchased at a great price. I lost friends and betrayed family, but I did it because the facts left me no other choice. To perpetuate the misconceptions of what Catholics believe is irresponsible. Just as you owe it to african-americans to understand their struggle and defend their right to equality, owe it to your Catholic brothers and sisters to understand what they believe before you criticize and discriminate against them. We are not idol worshipers. We are not re-sacrificing anything. We don't worship anyone but Christ the Savior. I could write novels on the things we don't do. But instead, I'd just ask you to find out what the truth is before you assume it.

National NFP Week: Part 4 - Top Ten Reasons (3-1)

Finally! The last installment of my Top Ten Reasons I love Natural Family Planning. Enjoy!

3. Rebellious   
Ok, I'm embarrassed to admit this, but the truth is that there is a rebel factor that really fuels my love of NFP. When I think about the masses, falling off cliffs of birth control like lemmings, it makes my little punk heart go all a flutter. It's really quite bad of me, but I feel so smart for figuring it out - except that I didn't.

This sticker was just too
appropriate to pass up.
You can buy it here.

Really, I'm just lucky. When I was thinking about becoming Catholic, I knew that the Church's teaching on Birth Control was the deal breaker. Like so many converts, I was not going to go through the long and arduous process of becoming Catholic (not to mention the confusion and sometimes even alienation of my protestant friends) if I couldn't go "all in." And how on earth could I go all in? They wanted me to have a million babies, loose all control of my body, and throw away any chance of being the independent success-driven woman that I was meant to be!

It takes about 30 seconds of REAL research (ie, not just talking to a cradle Catholic about birth control - since only 1 out of 10 of them follow this teaching, and certainly not listening to anyone who isn't Catholic - since I have never ever encountered so many myths about one subject before investigating the Church) to understand that the teaching that the Catholic promotes has nothing to do with a million children or a sexist agenda. In fact, when you actually bother to find out what the teaching is, rather than relying on hearsay, it's a very natural extension of a non-hypocritical pro-life, pro-feminity, pro-family viewpoint.

But I digress. As much as I would love to say that I'm superior to all those victims (and their well meaning healthcare providers) out there who are still falling for the lies of the fat-cat pharmaceutical companies, I just happened to be blessed to find out the truth. You actually don't have to take a pill that could kill you. You don't need to have surgery to stop your body's natural function. It's not neccessary, but more importantly it's downright unpleasant. And I choose not to. Stick it to the man, baby. Down with the machine.

2. Moral

"The Good News About Sex & Marriage"
by Christopher West is based on JPII's .
Theology of the Body.

This one is way too big for me to tackle on my own. First of all, people will believe I am condemning them, or at least condemning their friends. I understand why they think that; it seems like tolerance and acceptance have become inaccurate synonyms nowadays, but that's neither here nor there. Please remember that to condemn those who use birth control would be to condemn myself, since I used artificial birth control for a very long time. The only "condemnation" would be a self-imposed one: to fully understand what exactly you are doing by blocking the whole purpose of sex fully and intentionally, and continue to do it. Very few people understand it, and that's not their fault. However, if you are smart enough to want to know what's actually happening when you use contraception, then you do have a moral responsibility to learn more.

"The Good News About Sex and Marriage" is my favorite resource for information about the morality of NFP. The author, Christopher West, offers talks geared at Catholics, Evangelicals, Agnostics and more. YouTube it. It will be worth a listen - if for no other reason than to open your mind a bit to what God actually intended for sex. It's certainly not the Puritanical leftovers that most American Christians believe, nor is it the totally open agenda that our culture is pushing - it's quite refreshing and liberating. Sex can be both moral and fun. Who knew?
 
1. Pro-Life
There's a lot to this one, so I'll focus on the one aspect of it that I think will be the hardest to swallow: that using birth control within a committed marriage relationship to control the size of your family is anti-life.

I struggle so much to understand how someone can be pro-life and still take birth control. Forget the fact that it's an abortifacent,  it's also completely contrary to the attitude that welcomes life. If the myth that sex without birth control always results in an eventual pregnancy was true, I would understand the need for taking those measures. But it's simply not true. See reason #10. I suppose that's why they do it - they think that they must in order to be responsible parents and citizens. It goes back to what I said about your number of children exceeding your ability. If that's the case - kudos for trying to be a good mom or dad, and for considering the rest of the world when you make your decision. But you've been sold a bunch of junk. Return to sender.

The truth that I've discovered is that to be truly pro-life you have to really redefine sex all together. It's not about you. It's about the person your with. To quote JPII, sex is the free, total, faithful and fruitful union of a man and woman. You can't give yourself in a way that fits all those criteria without being void of anything that would block the giving. That includes cheating (the potential for current or future partners, ie, monogamy!), mental withholding (pornography and fantasies about someone else), and the intentional blocking of the miracle of life that results from the natural union that sex is. Anything less that a full giving of self objectifies your partner instead of honoring them. It makes them a thing of pleasure instead of a person of value. That's not a good marriage folks. That's not even a good lay.

How is that for a finish?

National NFP Week: Part 3 - Top Ten Reasons (6-4)

Yes, I know. It's confusing. Part 3 of NFP Week is Part 2 of my countdown. So sue me. Anyway, on with the show! Here are reasons 6, 5, and 4 that I <3 Natural Family Planning.

6. Marriage-Building
Even though I looked up tons of great statistics on the success of marriage when practicing NFP, including divorce rates that are as low as 3% and usually cited at at least 5% in comparison with 50% for the average couple, I think that this is a more subjective point, so I'll just share my experiences on this. There are countless reasons why this method strengthens the bond between man and wife, but I'm going to focus on only one: abstinence as a positive thing. Say what?


Times of abstinence observed during fertility can be very frustrating to be sure, but the surprising thing is how profoundly they change your heart. You don't realize the difficulty of showing love outside of a single physical act until that act is not available. Sex often becomes a crutch to keep us from actual closeness, real intimacy. Eliminate that option, even for a little while, and you discover that the ability to show physical affection without sexual contact has all but disappeared. In the beginning of a relationship, a young couple can't seem to keep their hands off each other: holding hands, making out in public, constantly flirting. How many couples maintain that? You might argue that it's due to time passing and passion naturally waning in the wake of a mature relationship, but I would argue that we have used the "crutch" of sex to excuse us from everything else.

Monotony or Monogamy?

Here's the best way I can think of to describe it: simple and straight forward. You love Starbucks. You love it so much, that you decide to declare in front of God and all your loved ones only to drink only Starbucks Coffee all the days of your life. You move in next to a Starbucks, and every day you go in and get your coffee. Sure, there may be some variety: flavor shots, iced drinks, maybe even a little whipped cream (coffee, folks - get your mind out of the gutter!). But it's all really the same. After a few years, Dunkin Donuts is looking pretty good. Shoot, even a good pot of joe at home sounds pretty nice. Then Starbucks announces it's new hours of operation: they are closed for business from the 15th to the 22nd each month. Because you vowed not to stray, this means no coffee at all for that week of the month. It's gonna be a long week for sure, but tell me you aren't going to hug your barista when the doors open on the 23rd!


I know that the concept of abstinence during fertile times sounds horrible, but in my experience both the husband and the wife look at this time as a time of growth, love, and most importantly, appreciation. If you'll pardon the pun, I would say "Abstinence makes the heart grow fonder."


5. Healthy
I've already written a couple posts of the constantly-ignored and ever-present dangers of hormonal birth control and sterilization methods (see "Are you NovaSure about this?" and "Beyaz: It's Good (?) to have Choices"). The fact is that anything outside of a simple barrier method has terrible side effects that we tend to ignore. Why? I'm really not sure. I know that personally, when I used it, I played down the risks because I thought that they were worth it in order to not become pregnant (side note: did you know that 49% of unplanned pregnancies in the US occured while using contraception?).

Prevent Breast Cancer: Stay off Hormonal BC!

So what are the risks? Well, for all my ladies out there, there's what I refer to as the Big Four: greatly increased risk of Cervical, Ovarian, Uterine and Breast Cancer. (Note: a reader graciously pointed out that I have fallen into one of my least favorite traps. My source here was not up to date or accurate. Better information with reliable sources on the links between oral contraceptives and cancer will be available in a new post. I will update here. Thank you reader!)  In other words, this stuff attacks your reproductive system's ability to ward off cancer. Geez o petes, folks, leave my lady parts alone! There's also the abortive nature of some of the most popular methods of birth control. As I've mentioned before, IUDs (hormonal and the non-hormonal copper version), birth control pills, rings, shots, patches, and some forms of sterilization are known to not only prevent ovulation or the meeting of sperm and egg - they simply make it impossible for a fertilized egg (aka growing life) to implant in the uterus or to survive there. To make a metaphor, rather than locking your house to prevent the riff raff from entering, you leave the door unlocked until they are inside, then starve them to death.

And for a second, let's talk about body function. If the big pharmeceutical company came out with a new pill that you take every day that keeps you from ever having to pee again, would you take it? I mean, sure it would make car trips nice, and the bathroom would make a great walk-in closet, but come on. Wouldn't that strike you as incredibly unnatural, and probably unsafe? Would you listen a little closer to "fine print" at the end of the television commercial for this miracle drug? Something about stopping a function of your body just for convenience seems really wrong to most people, but that's what we are doing. Whether or not your birth control stops menstruation, it is stopping the function of your reproductive system entirely. A complete halt of something that our bodies have been doing since the beginning of time. That's just creepy.
  
4. Unifying (between Partners)  
I talked about the benefits of this method on marriage a little, but I don't think I really discussed the cooperative nature of the method. I have begun to realize that there is a real inequality in how we think about pregnancy prevention. We say that a woman has to right to declare, "my body, my choice!" Woo hoo! Except that, as Spiderman once put it, with great power comes great responsibility. And that responsibility, like the choice, is not also not shared.

Why does the man's half of the
responsibility resemble fruit candy?

When a teenager becomes sexually active, we tell them it's their responsibility to protect themselves. For a girl, this means a trip to the free clinic for birth control pills (accompanied by a lecture in safe sex, an education in options and possibly an STD screening) followed by a nearly endless pressure to keep up with that medication until menopause. For a boy, it means a trip to CVS for a couple rubbers that he'll keep in his wallet. No lecture, no education, no long term commitment - really not much of anything. His involvement is limited to the same actions as buying a comic book.

Not that I think this is man keeping woman down. I am not so sure that man is the awful, sex-crazed caveman we make him out to be. Maybe he wants to take some responsibility. Maybe, out of love for his partner, and appreciation for her natural responsibility to carry a child should she become pregnant, he wants to be a real man, and take action. But what choice have we given him? Just go get your rubbers, you cad.

NFP is completely unique in that it takes equal commitment and understanding of both partners. They are both in tune to their own fertility (since his doesn't vary, the focus is on hers, but the responsibility is shared). It would be unfair to ask a woman to do all the housework, or a man to do all child rearing. Fertility is a big job - it takes two.

Coming Soon:
3. Rebellious   
2. Moral 
1. Pro-Life

National NFP Week: Part 2 - Top Ten Reasons (10-7)

Call it what it is, I always say. That's the premise behind the title of today's post. True, it's not National National Family Planning Week anymore. Missed the boat on that one. But I promised a Letterman-style breakdown of the what I love about this crazy Natural Family Planning mumbo jumbo, so we'll cut to the chase.

10. Accurate
There are so many medical professionals who would argue with me on this, and I see their point. I have seen "failure rates" for natural birth control methods range from as low as .5% all the way up to 25%. What would cause this disparity? Measuring failure of this method is tough, since the majority of those who use it are happily married and could welcome more children with no real objection - most of the "mistakes" are what I would call "slip-ups." For example, I have a friend who, after 22 months of successfully using this method after her first child (through turbulent breastfeeding, mind you) got pregnant. A doctor would call this a failure, but my friend wouldn't. If you ask her, she says that she was growing "intentionally more lazy about tracking everything." In other words, she wanted a kid before she thought she would, and let her "slip up" take the fall. To me, that's a planned pregnancy, not a birth control failure. I also have a friend who truly wanted to space her children, and used this method without so much as a scare for 3.5 years before conceiving their second child on the very first try. I have a similar experience. I've only tried to get pregnant twice, and both were one shot one kill. I can not only tell my OBGYN the date of my last period, I can tell her the date of conception (down to the hour...TMI!). In between our kids, we had no scares. To me, accuracy of NFP is dependent on 2 main factors: what method you use, and how devoted you are to it. If you are using a "lazy" method, or are "lazy" in practice, well - who's surprised when the pee stick has two lines? So here's a simple answer from an unexpected source. The Department of Defense lists both condoms and NFP as equally effective, providing the woman practice correctly.

9. Economical
I spent $5 on my thermometer, $14 on my "how-to" book, and that was pretty much it. If I replaced them every year (I won't replace them that often, but just for argument's sake), and I used them for 30 years, I would spend $570 in my whole lifetime. If you have insurance, based on average co-pays, a woman on typical birth control will spend nearly $18,000 in her life (source). Here's a visual breakdown from the same site:

8. Natural 

This is not what I mean by a well-planned family.

We all know the green movement is...well...moving. What could be more natural than refusing to fill your system with chemicals to stunt a natural cycle of the female body? After all - how did they do it before birth control? It's a relatively new idea, right? When thinking about this before I started looking into NFP, I remember thinking that the reason my great-grandparents had 12 children was because there was no modern birth control. But then again, the pill wasn't perfected until the 60s, and what about people in the 20s, 30s, 40s? Didn't they have reasonably sized families? It seems that the trend of giant families in the 1800s was an American thing, more a product of necessity (more hands on the farm) than fertility. So what did our ancestors know about having babies that we don't? Mmm hmm.

"Sex= No connection needed with babies"

7. Enlightening
Raise your hand if sex-ed failed you (insert ridiculous flailing of author's arm here). I left high school understanding about as much about my body as I did about the body of the frog I dissected in 9th grade bio, and rest assured that wasn't much. A few simple facts that no one bothered to put together for me: Men are always fertile. Women are only fertile 3 days of the month, on average. Coincidence, or providence? My point here is that I have learned more about what's actually going on inside me and why from NFP than I ever thought possible (and the truth will set you free).

More to come in Reasons 1-6:

• Marriage-Building
• Healthy   
• Unifying (between Partners)  
• Rebellious   
• Moral  
• Pro-Life  

National NFP Week: Part 1 - Why Artificial Birth Control is Wrong

This child is clearly a
product of NFP and some seriously
crunchy parents.

Hello again! After my light-hearted and approachable post on the growing epidemic of juice-loving toddlers, it's time to reach deep into the heart of what makes me crazy again! This is an extremely Catholic, extremely pro-life, extremely crunchy post. Be warned. Still reading? Huzzah!

Of all the things I do, my choice to avoid all forms of artificial birth control is by far the most shocking to most people. In honor of National NFP (Natural Family Planning) Week, I'm going to talk a little about why. What? No birth control? At all? That's right - I don't take the pill, I don't use condoms, and I am against vasectomy and tube-tying. In fact, I think all of these things are immoral. To me, it's the most obvious and honest extension of the pro-life mentality. Almost all forms of birth control are abortive at least some of the time, meaning that they cause a fertilized egg to be unnaturally expelled or create an environment in the womb that makes it impossible to continue growing. If you believe that life begins at conception, that means that these kinds of birth control end life*. Abortive forms of birth control include hormonal pills ("the pill" in all it's forms) and hormonal IUDs, to name just a couple.

*If you don't think of conception as the beginning of life, I would really like to talk to you about why. Maybe you think of it as life, like a parasite has life. My question then is: when does that life progress to the point of having the same rights as a human? Or simplier even, when does it have a soul? Is it when the heart starts beating? When the embryo moves? When the baby is born? I have heard them all, and I can't for the life of me (pardon the pun) understand any of them. Biology says that conception is the beginning. Anything else seems to just be half-hearted unresearched personal philosophy.  But I'll save that for another day.

So what about other forms that don't allow fertilization? Barrier methods (condoms, cervical caps) and sterilization (vasectomy, tied tubes) have some really horrible cultural side effects: they make sex purely recreational, create a false sense of security, and foster an attitude of pregnancy as a disease. The more you look into it, the history of our society and how it has thought about sex for the last 100 years, you see that birth control has caused a breakdown in our understanding of our place in the world. We are sexual creatures. But we are also moral, logical, reasonable creatures. That's what makes us different from, say, a bonobo monkey.

The Duggar Family has become famous
based on their "quiver-full" mentality.
Do they have the right idea? I say no.

This does not mean that I want, or even plan to have, 15 children. Though couples that embrace pregnancy in this way (by not taking any measures to space or avoid pregnancy) have grasped the basic idea of "life is good," they are, in my opinion, missing the point. The whole idea is to love children, from the moment of conception on, and to treat them as gifts to be treasured and nurtured. Having too many children can hurt them all. They may not get the resources they need - financially, emotionally, or even physically - to grow up in the best possible environment. For example, if a 6 year old girl spends most of her day caring for the basic needs of her younger siblings, she is not being allowed to learn, experience and grow in a way that will give her the best chance at a great life. The key is to balance it. Love life, love children, welcome them as the gift they are, but value the ones you already have enough to not "crowd them out."

I realize that I'm simplifying this so much that if this is the first time you've heard of this line of belief, it probably sounds like complete malarkey. It goes against absolutely everything that our society teaches about sex, love, babies, marriage, etc. It took me a long time to get to the point of even understanding - much less believing - this school of thought, often referred to as the "culture of life." I'm not here to convince you of these thoughts with just a few paragraphs. I'm just hoping to open your mind a bit.

Enter NFP. Natural Family Planning is a deep subject. I'm just going to have to write a whole new post on this one. Sufficient for now to say that it's not your mom's rhythm method, it's so medically-minded that it will make the pill look elementary, and it will change your life for the better. How? Here's a fun fact: the divorce rate for couples that practice NFP? 5%. No, I didn't forget a 0.

Got you hooked? Stay tuned - my next post will be a simple top ten reasons why I love NFP. Thanks for reading!

That Fourth Day in July

lib·er·ty/ˈlibərtē/n1. The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life.¹

 

free·dom/ˈfrēdəm/n1. The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint. 2. Absence of subjection to foreign domination or despotic government.²

 

in·dep·en·dence/ˌindəˈpendəns/n1. a condition of a nation, country or state in which its residents and population, or some portion thereof, exercise self-government, and usually sovereignty, over its territory.³

 

I was listening to the radio yesterday (EWTN, of course. What else is there?) on the 4th of July. One of the talk radio hosts said that he believes that one of the biggest problems we have with our attitude about Independence Day is that we misunderstand the difference between liberty and freedom. He said that we use them as synonyms, that we think they mean the same thing, but they do not. Enter my confusion. I guess I had never thought about it. Are they really that different? What is the difference?

 

I have a friend who is very "intense" on facebook. I know, I know. Hello pot, I'm kettle, and you're black. But this guy makes my posts look like marshmallow fluff. Of course, I love that. I relish the chance to stir the pot right back and comment on the things he posts, most of which are about religion (note that we don't agree here, but maintain a friendship - go Ecumenicism!) but also include some of my favorite subjects like Irish Heritage and least favorite subjects like partisan politics. In honor of our "nation's birthday," he made multiple posts on the subject of that anniversary. Because I know he won't mind, here they are, verbatim, but in no particular order:

 

Rock on, friend. Stick it to the man.

1. FYI- Did you know that the "Star Spangled Banner" was written aboard a British ship, and the tune was composed by a British composer? It wasn't adopted as the National Anthem until 1931.

 

2. If Jesus died to set men free, why do we behave as if it took Him 1776 years to do so? 

 

3. "When will Mankind be convinced that true Religion is from the Heart, between Man and his creator, and not the imposition of Man or creeds and tests?" -Abigail Adams

 

4. (My personal favorite:) Jesus Saves From Patriotism.

 

And you think I like to stir up trouble! Of course he makes an excellent point, perhaps several. But I think there's something to be said about the theory of the EWTN DJ here: If people are confusing what Christ did for mankind and what the Declaration of Independence did for Americans, bad definitions are the source of the breakdown. Therein lies the rub. Shall we discuss? I include a cited glossary at the top. It doesn't do as much to illuminate as I would have hoped, but it's a good jumping off place. Let's start at the bottom and work up. 

 

Independence refers to a country's political ability to govern itself. It doesn't really relate to  the individual, but remembering that the official name for the 4th day in July is "Independence Day," that sheds light on the idea of why we shoot fireworks and drink too much. Because on that day, 235 years ago, we made an official statement to the British government that we were going to govern ourselves and fall under our own sovereignty alone. Boo-ya Mama England. (Please note that this is not the anniversary of when we actually began governing ourselves. A lot of good men died for the cause before that happened.)

That leaves Freedom and Liberty. From the definitions I found, it seems like they both relate to the individual, but freedom is more dependent upon the idea to which it refers, while liberty is more of an abstract,  broad-spectrum concept. 

Give me liberty or give me death (P. Henry). Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (T. Jefferson). Let them revere nothing but religion, morality and liberty (J. Adams). When these guys talk about the ultimate goal, they don't talk of being free. Freedom is a word the founding fathers reserved for specific rights. Freedom of Religion (not from Religion, mind you). Freedom of the press. To bear arms. Etc. Freedom is a, forgive me, lesser concept. Liberty is the great pie in the sky that we strive for as Americans. The idea of freedom can be lofty, I suppose, but the word itself mostly is just functional.

 

Going back to my friend's point, I would say that Jesus didn't die to set us free in general. His sacrifice didn't make us free to write blogs without fear of government reprisal. The Bill of Rights did that. It didn't make us free to abort pregnancies if we so choose. Roe vs. Wade did that. What Christ did freed us from the consequences of our own sin. That's what makes it powerful. Not the word "freedom." The word "Sin" immediately following the word "freedom." 

 

Specificity! The best thing since sliced bread. After all, that pretty lady at the top with the eagle and the Captain America sheild is Lady Liberty. I doubt she'd answer to anything else.

ZPGers may not have a leg to stand on

Let me begin by wishing you all a holy and fruitful Ash Wednesday. I will be marking this Lent with additional prayers and required abstinence from meat on Friday - but not with fasting. One of the nice things about being pregnant (though I understand why it's not required of me, since I was starving by 11 am after a huge bowl of oatmeal at 6).

Did the title of this post confuse you? ZPGer is a new term to me. I found it in a book I'm rereading: "Rome Sweet Home," by Scott & Kimberly Hahn (incidentally, the story of an anti-catholic Presbyterian couple who slowly comes to believe that the Truth is in the Catholic Church). You know I love to be cryptic so that you will ask a question, so today's question should be: What's a ZPGer? Answer: Zero Population Growth Advocate.

I like kids - so much that I hope to be able to have 4, maybe 5. Not exactly typical. A big part of this desire is the NFP that I practice (see last post, "Beyaz...") and how it's changed my view of life as a whole, but particularly the value of a child. Most people think this is a lot of kids - too many, in fact. I have been told that I shouldn't have so many children because I will contribute to the "overpopulation of the earth." I have two words in response to that: "Oh brother."

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying this because I'm being selfish about it. This is not a "I can have as many kids as I dang well please" kind of thing. I believe (very much) in being responsible with my family choices - and I assure you, reader, that I will not have more children than I can handle. If two is where I stop, I will chalk it up to a prudent decision based on the emotional, financial and mental needs of the children I have already been blessed with. I say Oh Brother because this whole myth of our shrinking earth is malarkey. It's time for an episode of myth busters, semi-crunch style.

I want to share another video with you, but it's super controversial. Here's my disclaimer: This is not a sign of my hatred or disdain for Islam, Muslims, or any other population represented. These views are the views of the videos creator, and not my own. I share only to let you see a few numbers, because they helped bring the "population grown problem" into an entirely new perspective when I first saw this. Watch the whole thing, and remember that an implication that the video makes is just that, an implication. Try to see the good in this, not the bad.



My opinion of this video? It's taking a lot of liberties with these facts, and it has all the symptoms of a classic scare tactic. But it makes an excellent point, don't you think? I think the major "take home point" for me is that the ZPGers have already won over anyone who's culturally surroundings don't supersede their new idea. In other words, if your religion, creed, culture, or society doesn't demand you have more children, you're going to have less. Much less. So telling your college roommate, neighbor, or future spouse that having 6 kids is contributing to the over population of the earth is really quite ridiculous. Take your message to Niger, Mali or Chad (highest birth rates). Leave poor Minnesota alone.

Here's a persepective I stumbled across on Yahoo Answers that I find particularly interesting:

T. Seal, editorialist for the Arctic Times

Underpopulation is a problem where the economy is set up for growth. Of course it threatens a community if the population loss is great. That community will no longer thrive, nor will the economy. However, nature will be glad. Overpopulation is killing the environment through pollution and destruction of resources we depend on for survival, such as our atmosphere, clean air and water, good farming land, healthy ocean fish, etc. Nature tends to thin the overpopulated, but not the underpopulated. So, the ecologically correct answer is reduction of population is good and I'd like to see a significant reduction before we take out any more species' ability to survive in a world with us.

Sincerely, a seal.

Besides the fact that the seal can write better than me, I think he's a bit biased (not being human and all). I couldn't agree more - overpopulation is certainly contributing to the death of our precious ecological balance. But is the answer to stop procreating? Or maybe - crazy thought - maybe we should focus on raising ecologically responsible children?

I won't go on, because my posts almost always border on the ridiculously long, but here are a list of other (superficially and seemingly less biased) sources that say the same thing. View if you'd like.


http://geography.about.com/od/populationgeography/a/populationgrow.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/2011-01-06-us-population_N.htm
http://www.uic.edu/classes/osci/osci590/15_3%20Population%20Growth%20II.htm

---

If you like this post, check out "Follow up on ZPGers"