Part-Time Pundit

Review: Emma’s Journal by Juli Loesch Wiley

As a male reading Emma’s Journal by Juli Loesch Wiley, I was somewhat uncomfortable. The book reads is if I picked up a diary of a woman who I did not know and started flipping through it. The account is a frank and open recollection of a 5 year period of the author’s life. That is, by far, the book’s biggest strength.

Juli is a vastly talented writer and it comes out in her book. She describes events and her inner struggles with wit and candor. She writes from the backdrop of the 80s as a peace activist and pro-life activist. That combination of activities when you include a serious and devout Catholic faith creates a unique life situation that comes out in the first few chapters.

The oddity that more a group or individual tends to take up social justice or peace activism, that they become less pro-life and less orthodox merits exploration (that is beyond the scope of the book). It’s rare that an individual synthesizes all those positions and you can’t help but feel the loneliness of someone who does, because they find themselves in “no one’s camp”.

The book is less a story of conversion (the author was a practicing Catholic at the time the journals begin), but a struggle of trying to live within the bounds of chastity in an environment and society that certainly isn’t built to foster that. The book retells events that seem to be familiar among other women I know, men who are out to simply bed women as if they were objects.

At points, the book does get somewhat detailed into various scenes of sexuality in the past of the author which could cause some to be a little squeamish. However, there needs to made a strong distinction between chastity and prudishness. Chastity seeks to put sexuality in its proper and sacred place; prudishness seeks suppression of any mention as if sexuality was some dirty and forbidden thing.

If the arguments for chastity are to make any inroads into society; people need to bare their souls and talk modestly about sexuality. That does not translate into an injunction against all discussion. Juli should be praised for her openness and courage in baring her soul in this way, much as Dawn Eden did in her book, Thrill of the Chaste. More books like these need to be written.

The book is an easy and enjoyable read along Juli’s 5 year journey chronicled in journals. I highly recommend it, particularly for Christian women, who are looking in frank personal testimonials in the trials and tribulations of being chaste in an unchaste country.

May 2nd, 2007 Posted by John Bambenek | Book Reviews, Features, Pro-Life, Religion, Sex | one comment

Overlooked Blog Review - Big Dog’s Weblog

Big Dog is an anonymous milblog written by a 24 year retired veteran of the United States Army. He is also the hosts a radio show on conservative talk radio station, Wide Awakes Radio (which is currently down for upgrades). Big Dog primarily writes on political subjects and current events from a conservative perspective and has been blogging since August 2004. Far from being a typical partisan cheerleader, a regular feature of the blog is the “Jackass of the Month award”, this month’s award going to Republican politicians.

The blog design is clean and easy to access without the cluttering of a tremendous amount of widgets and blogrolls that characterize so many other blogs. The content, not ads, take center stage.

The writing is clear and relevant to the issues of the day. Big Dog brutally slays opposing points of view without descending into the fecal-slinging typical of the gibbering yard apes that can populate the blogosphere. The blog is frequently updated with several new posts a day covering whatever is news at the moment. The one drawback is that there doesn’t seem to be much in the way of discussion on the site.

Big Dog’s Weblog is active in several conservative blogging groups and provides unique and insightful commentary (albeit direct and blunt) that makes it a must-read particularly for those interested in popular conservatism.

If you would like to suggest a blog for the Overlooked Blog Review, please contact John Bambenek at jcb.blog {at} gmail [dot] com. You can read the guidelines for nominating here. Blogs profiled are given a free month membership to Blog Soldiers.

December 15th, 2006 Posted by John Bambenek | Overlooked Blog Review, Politics | no comments

The Disquieting of the Unchaste: A Review of The Thrill of the Chaste by Dawn Eden

Dawn Eden quite literally bares her soul in The Thrill of the Chaste to show by personal experience that “Sex and the City” feminism doesn’t work nor does it produce happiness. What makes her “everyone’s second favorite scary conservative Catholic” (according to Gawker.com) is that her book is the heat-seeking missile of reality smashing full-speed into the delusion of casual sex as fulfillment.

Dawn is brutally honest in the book about her history and the effect it has had on her life. Usually the cliché word used to describe such books is “refreshing.” In this case, the better word is “disquieting” because it directly challenged deeply ingrained notions about sex and dating. It exposes “Sex and the City” feminism for responding to misogyny with misandry. Unintentional misandry perhaps but misandry nonetheless.

As a defense of Christian chastity, it pulls no punches. For the sake of discussion on issues of sex, Christians have been at a disadvantage for decades against the free sex crowd. For instance, certain feminists like to brag that we can “finally have a discussion about the female orgasm.” Christians aren’t beyond such discussions, they simply believe that those discussions take place between husband and wife and see no need to air the conjugal laundry in public.

That said, by not discussing sex in open yet modest terms, Christian sexual ethics have become quickly discarded and not part of the debate. Arguments like “because God say so” don’t work in a room full of adults. Dawn, by bringing in personal detail, not only displays great courage but provides powerful refutation to cherished sexual notions that do far more harm to women than they have ever done good. Sex and the City feminism has made it all but impossible for men and women to relate to each other as people. Women enter the “dating world” without the tools to have a relationship… aside from the one in the bedroom. There is a lot of talk and dating advice about people as “sexual beings” as if that was the only aspect of their humanity.

If Christianity ever expects to win people over to a Christian sexual ethic, it must answer in no unclear terms without being pornographic. Many have responded to this balancing act by simply avoiding the debate altogether. The result is many more women and men who have been harmed because they simply know no different.

The central point of the book is vulnerability. In order to have any real relationship, one must be vulnerable to hurt. In a society that values feelgoodism, this idea is anathema. However, by not only advocating vulnerability but demonstrating it in the book, she displays not only great courage but great integrity. Advocating what you yourself would not do is hypocrisy. Many of the children dressed up in adult’s skin in today’s world likely giggled at the more personal details of the book, but likely many more will be won over by the Dawn’s candor. In that way, the book is nothing short of heroic.

The book itself was written as a woman to other women, so in a sense it seems to exclude men. The wreckage of sexual pathology left in the wake of the sexual revolution has incapacitated men just as much as women in the area of romantic relationships and such books hold great value for men who want to understand what the mindset is of the women they try and meet and date. However, reading this book has made me keenly aware that no counterpart from the male perspective is out there and that this is a great oversight of tragic proportions.

The book bills itself on a new sexual revolution built around chastity. This isn’t entirely accurate. The book is a relationship revolution that tries to detach sex as the solitary component in male-female relationships. For those about to enter the dating scene or those who are dissatisfied with the “meet” market, this book is a must-read.

December 13th, 2006 Posted by John Bambenek | Book Reviews, Politics | 3 comments

The Antitheism of Richard Dawkins: A Review of The God Delusion

You shouldn’t judge a book by its cover, but you can tell a lot from what comments make it on the back of the book. So it is with New York Times bestseller The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. Observe the following review from Philip Pullman: “Many religious leaders are men who, it’s obvious to anyone but their deranged followers, are willing to sanction vicious cruelty in the service of their faith.” While it is ironic that those who would defend relativism shroud themselves in the robe of self-righteous sanctimony, this book is not one of reason. It is one of hate.

It is not a hate caused by someone who has done you grave harm such as killing your family. It is not even a hate caused on some petty slight because you got cut off in traffic. It’s a deep-seated hate that consumes and overwhelms. It is a hate without explanation; it is blind and irrational. Dawkins does not present a case for atheism — he presents a polemic for antitheism. His first principle is that religion is a grave harm to humanity, and he then proceeds to fit the facts around that principle.

The book itself is separated into two main components. The first is a philosophical attack against religion and the existence of God. The second is a long series of case studies showing the supposed harm of religion on humanity. Dawkins is clearly an intelligent and rational being, but throughout the book you can see the struggle between his reason and his irrational hate. Unfortunately for him, the hate usually wins out.

The first portion of the text is rather unremarkable and boring, as it contains many of the same arguments that have been hashed and rehashed for centuries. However, one argument stands out: that those who hold God exists have argued from “personal experience” that God exists — they know He has touched them somehow in their lives. Dswkins responds by saying that some people experience pink elephants.

With one swift stroke, not only has Dawkins dismembered any proof for religion, but he has annihilated the entire body of human knowledge. Imagine using the argument that some people see pink elephants in a courtroom to discredit a witness on the stand. It is nothing short of intellectual laziness. There are criteria to judge which experiences are credible and which are not, and that includes religious ones.

Dawkins himself brings up the alleged miraculous apparition in Fatima, Portugal, where thousands saw the sun dance in the sky. He disregards “collective hallucinations” as a legitimate explanation, but then quickly runs away from dealing with the event. For that matter, he ignores many well-documented miracles revolving around Mary or the Eucharist. He simply accepts the facts that support his point and tries to disregard the rest, while his rationality can’t completely ignore the unfriendly facts that continue to surface.

The second portion of the book takes the more infamous religious figures and sets them up to show how corrupt religion is. First, Dawkins doesn’t seem to recognize a difference between being religious and being fundamentalist/absolutist, as he uses the terms interchangeably. Second, case studies are fine to help fill in gaps when accompanied by some other information, but case studies can very easily be used to justify negative stereotypes in the absence of real facts. Every stereotype has its poster child. I can do a case study on the stereotypical black criminal; it doesn’t mean I’ve proven all blacks to be cutthroat murders.

In addition, some of the case studies are just plain ludicrous. There is a common (yet completely devoid of fact) charge that Pius XII helped the Nazis slaughter the Jews. The proof? That the pope didn’t issue a statement against the Nazis, despite the fact that hundreds of thousands of Jews were protected by the Church. We can forgive an academic mistaking action with making statements; however, the leading Jewish figures of the time all commended the Church for her aid.

Then there is the oft repeated statement that religion causes wars. However, when Dawkins faces the fact that the thoroughly secular governments of Nazi Germany, Stalin’s USSR and Mao’s China are responsible for the biggest atrocities in recorded history, he quickly abandons any possible connection between those governments and antitheism. He is unable to consider that many wars were not fought over religion, but that religion played a role in wars that would have taken place anyway. For example, the conflict in Northern Ireland is often characterized as a struggle between Catholics and Protestants. The fact is that there are three counties that the Irish (who have a national religion) believe are theirs and the English (who also have a national religion) believe rightly belong to them. The conflict is a geopolitical one. I’ve not heard of a bombing in Belfast because Henry VIII’s fertility issues.

Dawkins mentions the story of Edgardo Mortara, a child of Jewish parents who was baptized secretly and subsequently taken from his Jewish parents. Dawkins avoids dealing with any of the controversy surrounding the incident, including Edgardo’s own testimony, because it conflicts with his antitheistic principle. He also states, falsely, on page 312, that no consent is required for infant baptism (Canon 868 in the Code of Canon Law states that in all but the most exceptional circumstances parental consent is required).

He labels Mother Teresa a hypocrite for speaking out against abortion but never mentions exactly what the nature of her hypocrisy is. In fact, when Dawkins enters the squalor that Mother Teresa served in, perhaps then he might be fit to stand over her in judgment.

Dawkins never mentions that the religious give more in charity, volunteer more, and are generally active in trying to make their communities a better place to live. He brings up figures that have long been ignored or have shown themselves to be frauds such as Jerry Fawell, Ted Haggert, Fred Phelps, and so on. He pre-selects the most scandalous religious figures and casually ignores the noblest ones. He makes sweeping generalizations that simply aren’t true. Speaking only from the Catholic perspective, I know of no serious Catholic theologian or cleric that says unquestioned faith is a virtue.

Yet his rationality does creep in from time to time. He is skeptical of the onslaught against the Catholic Church in the wake of the sex abuse crisis. While one pedophiliac priest is one too many, there are many other institutions that have far greater problems with sex abuse and covering it up (i.e. Planned Parenthood, high school guidance counselors, etc). He doesn’t subscribe to the widespread censorship in the name of “separation of church and state” either, realizing that the Bible is important for literature and a proper understanding of history.

Throughout the book, you can see the internal unconscious struggle in Dawkins between irrational hate and reason. Occasionally his reason creeps to the surface only to be shoved back down again. This latest missive of antitheistic thought, while celebrated by cognoscenti as a defense of reason, is a radical departure from reason. Dawkins states he despises confrontational gladiatorial contests that substitute for intelligent discourse these days, yet he just can’t help himself from descending into misanthropic zeal. The book remains a rehash of pop philosophy and loosely strung-together anecdotes, half-truths, and outright falsehoods. A defense of reason? Hardly.

December 12th, 2006 Posted by John Bambenek | Book Reviews, Religion | 7 comments

Wictory Wednesday Presents Sen. Jim Talent

This week Wictory Wednesday presents Jim Talent for re-election to the United States Senate.

Control of the Senate will come down to three races, Missouri, Tennesse, and Virginia. Jim Talent is fighting the hard fight in Missiouri and he’s a solid conservative. It’s one thing to lose a seat because the sitting Republican has no conservative credentials, defending a solid conservative however is a must.

Immigration is a hot issue with conservatives wondering why no one in the government seems to recognize a problem with an open border. Sure, many people come here to work and do contribute to the economy and their communities, however with an insecure border, even terrorists and criminals can walk in with complete ease. The current system also all but ensures that illegal immigrants are exiled to the fringe of society and left to be abused by human traffikers and malicious employers. The border needs to be shut so we can control who comes in and let in only those who are here for a better life.

Energy independence is another hot issue, and Jim Talent believes there are only a few ways to get that done. Either we need to research alternative fuels (which Talent supports) or drill for oil in land we control like ANWR (which Talent also supports). This race is also overshadowed by the ballot proposition on stem cell research and cloning, which was so disgustingly politicized by Michael J. Fox.

Please consider donating or assisting Jim Talent’s campaign.

This has been a production of the Wictory Wednesday blogburst. If you would like to join Wictory Wednesday, please see this post or contact John Bambenek at jcb (dot) blog [at] gmail {dot} com. The following sites are members of the Wictory Wednesday team:

October 25th, 2006 Posted by John Bambenek | Elections, Politics, Wictory Wednesday | one comment

Wictory Wednesday Presents Sen. Mike DeWine

This week Wictory Wednesday presents Senator Mike DeWine from Ohio for re-election to the US Senate. He is currently trailing Democrat challenger Sherrod Brown.

He supports the tax cuts and understands the best way to grow an economy is to bring business out from under the stifling arm of government taxation and regulation. Ultimately ever tax or regulation is paid for by the consumer.

Senator DeWine understands that affordable health care doesn’t mean that the government pays for and runs the system. Even Europe is moving away from such economically naïve models. A strong health care system requires that the consumer be in control, not some bureaucrat hundreds or thousands of miles away.

National security has never been more important. While terrorists attacks continue overseas, nothing has been successful in the United States since 9/11 and the Anthrax attacks. Senator DeWine understands that it requires strong intelligence agencies, a military with the necessary tools, and law enforcement who treats the problem as warfare against the citizens of this country, not as some petty criminal gang like the Crips.

Please consider supporting Senator DeWine’s re-election.

This has been a production of the Wictory Wednesday blogburst. If you would like to join Wictory Wednesday, please see this post or contact John Bambenek at jcb (dot) blog [at] gmail {dot} com. The following sites are members of the Wictory Wednesday team:

October 18th, 2006 Posted by John Bambenek | Elections, Politics, Wictory Wednesday | one comment

Wictory Wednesday Endorses Max Burns for US Congress

This week Wictory Wednesday presents Max Burns for the US Congress for the 12th District of Georgia. He is running a tight race against Democratic incumbent John Barrow.

The Israeli war in Lebanon has shown what will happen if we pull out of Iraq… the terrorists will claim victory and emerge even stronger and more emboldened. Max Burns understands this and supports the troops to complete their mission. We should live in a society that respects and supports those who risk their lives for our benefit. Sadly, we don’t live in that society.

Max Burns understands that immigration doesn’t require reform; it requires actually enforcing the laws on the books. Not enforcing the law has led to lawlessness and before any question of guest workers can be introduced, law and order needs to return to that segment of society.

The infamous “Bridge to Nowhere” has shown us that even a GOP lead Congress can still waste money. That is why earmark reform and a line item veto is all the more necessary. When pork can be put into budgets without debate (earmarks), the line item veto allows voters to put the heat on the President to bring sense back to Congressional spending. The GOP has gotten half of the equation right in lowering taxes… now they need to cut spending. Max Burns supports this in the form of a balanced budget.

Families waste days and weeks each year trying to figure out their “fair share” of taxes. Not even the IRS can figure out the tax code… a book that is over 12 times larger than the Bible! Max Burns supports cleaning up the tax code so that families can clearly understand what the owe… and the IRS can even figure it out too.

Please consider donating or volunteering to the Max Burns campaign. Help turn this blue seat red!

This has been a production of the Wictory Wednesday blogburst. If you would like to join Wictory Wednesday, please see this post or contact John Bambenek at jcb (dot) blog [at] gmail {dot} com. The following sites are members of the Wictory Wednesday team:

September 27th, 2006 Posted by John Bambenek | Elections, Politics, Wictory Wednesday | 3 comments