About Funky Dung
Who is Funky Dung?
29-year-old grad student in Intelligent Systems (A.I.) at the University of Pittsburgh. I consider myself to be politically moderate and independent and somewhere between a traditional and neo-traditional Catholic.
I was raised Lutheran, spent a number of years as an agnostic, and joined the Catholic Church at the 2000 Easter Vigil.
Why Funky Dung?
I haven't been asked this question nearly as many times as you or I might expect. Funky Dung is a reference to an obscure Pink Floyd song. On the album Atom Heart Mother, there is a track called Atom Heart Mother Suite. It's broken up into movements, like a symphony, and one of the movements is called Funky Dung. I picked that nickname a long time ago (while I was still in high school I think), shortly after getting an internet connection for the first time. To me it means "cool/neat/groovy/spiffy stuff/crap/shiznit", as in "That's some cool stuff, dude!"
Whence Ales Rarus?
I used to enjoy making people guess what this means, but I've decided to relent and make it known to all. Ales Rarus is a Latin play on words. "Avis rarus" means "a rare bird" and carries similar meaning to "an odd fellow". "Ales" is another Latin word for bird that carries connotations of omens, signs of the times, and/or augery. If you want to get technical, both "avis" and "ales" are feminine (requiring "rara", but they can be made masculine in poetry (which tends to breaks lots of rules). I decided I'd rather have a masculine name in Latin. ;) Yeah, I'm a nerd. So what? :-P
Wherefore blog?
It is my intention to "teach in order to lead others to faith" by being always "on the lookout for occasions of announcing Christ by word, either to unbelievers . . . or to the faithful" through the "use of the communications media". I also act knowing that I "have the right and even at times a duty to manifest to the sacred pastors [my] opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church, and [I] have a right to make [my] opinion known to the other Christian faithful, with due regard to the integrity of faith and morals and reverence toward [my and their] pastors, and with consideration for the common good and the dignity of persons." (adapted from CCC 904-907)
Statement of Faith
I have been baptized and confirmed in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I, therefore, renounce Satan; I renounce all his works; I renounce all his allurements.
I hold and profess all that is contained in the Apostles' Creed, the Niceno- Constantinopolitan Creed, and the Athanasian Creed.
Having been buried with Christ unto death and raised up with him unto a new life, I promise to live no longer for myself or for that world which is the enemy of God but for him who died for me and rose again, serving God, my heavenly Father, faithfully and unto death in the holy Catholic Church.
I am obedient to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. That is, I promote and defend authentic Catholic Teaching and Faith in union with Christ and His Church and in union with the Holy Father, the Bishop of Rome, the Successor of St. Peter.
Thanks be unto Thee, O my God, for all Thy infinite goodness, and, especially, for the love Thou hast shown unto me at my Confirmation. I Give Thee thanks that Thou didst then send down Thy Holy Spirit unto my soul with all His gifts and graces.
May He take full possession of me for ever.
May His divine unction cause my face to shine.
May His heavenly wisdom reign in my heart.
May His understanding enlighten my darkness.
May His counsel guide me.
May His knowledge instruct me.
May His piety make me fervent.
May His divine fear keep me from all evil.
Drive from my soul, O Lord, all that may defile it.
Give me grace to be Thy faithful soldier, that having fought the good fight of faith, I may be brought to the crown of everlasting life, through the merits of Thy dearly beloved Son, our Savior, Jesus Christ. Amen.
Behind the Curtain: an Interview With Funky Dung (Thursday, March 03, 2005)
I try to avoid most memes that make their way 'round the blogosphere (We really do need a better name, don't
we?), but some are worth participating in. Take for instance the "interview game" that's the talk o'
the 'sphere. I think it's a great way to get to know the people in neighborhood. Who are the people in your
neighborhood? In your neighborhod? In your neigh-bor-hoo-ood...*smack* Sorry, Sesame Street flashback.
Anyhow, I saw Jeff "Curt Jester"
Miller's answers and figured since he's a regular reader of mine he'd be a good interviewer. Without
further ado, here are my answers to his questions.
1. Being that your pseudonym Funky Dung was chosen from a Pink Floyd track on Atom Heart Mother, what is you
favorite Pink Floyd song and why?
Wow. That's a tuffy. It's hard to pick out a single favorite. Pink Floyd isn't really a band known for
singles. They mostly did album rock and my appreciation of them is mostly of a gestalt nature. If I had to
pick one, though, it'd be "Comfortably Numb". I get chills up my spine every time I hear it and if
it's been long enough since the last time, I get midty-eyed. I really don't know why. That's a rather
unsatisfying answer for an interview, so here are the lyrics to a Rush song. It's not their best piece of music,
but the lyrics describe me pretty well.
New World Man
He's a rebel and a runner
He's a signal turning green
He's a restless young romantic
Wants to run the big machine
He's got a problem with his poisons
But you know he'll find a cure
He's cleaning up his systems
To keep his nature pure
Learning to match the beat of the old world man
Learning to catch the heat of the third world man
He's got to make his own mistakes
And learn to mend the mess he makes
He's old enough to know what's right
But young enough not to choose it
He's noble enough to win the world
But weak enough to lose it ---
He's a new world man...
He's a radio receiver
Tuned to factories and farms
He's a writer and arranger
And a young boy bearing arms
He's got a problem with his power
With weapons on patrol
He's got to walk a fine line
And keep his self-control
Trying to save the day for the old world man
Trying to pave the way for the third world man
He's not concerned with yesterday
He knows constant change is here today
He's noble enough to know what's right
But weak enough not to choose it
He's wise enough to win the world
But fool enough to lose it ---
He's a new world man...
2. What do you consider your most important turning point from agnosticism to the Catholic Church.
At some point in '99, I started attending RCIA at the Pittsburgh Oratory. I mostly went to ask a lot of
obnoxious Protestant questions. Or at least that's what I told myself. I think deep down I wanted desperately
to have faith again. At that point I think I'd decided that if any variety of Christianity had the Truth, the
Catholic Church did. Protestantism's wholesale rejection of 1500 years of tradition didn't sit well with me,
even as a former Lutheran.
During class one week, Sister Bernadette Young (who runs the program) passed out thin booklet called "
Handbook for Today's Catholic". One paragraph
in that book spoke to me and I nearly cried as I read it.
"A person who is seeking deeper insight into reality may sometimes have doubts, even about God himself.
Such doubts do not necessarily indicate lack of faith. They may be just the opposite - a sign of growing faith.
Faith is alive and dynamic. It seeks, through grace, to penetrate into the very mystery of God. If a
particular doctrine of faith no longer 'makes sense' to a person, the person should go right on seeking. To
know what a doctrine says is one thing. To gain insight into its meaning through the gift of understanding is
something else. When in doubt, 'Seek and you will find.' The person who seeks y reading, discussing,
thinking, or praying eventually sees the light. The person who talks to God even when God is 'not there' is
alive with faith."
At the end of class I told Sr. Bernadette that I wanted to enter the Church at the next Easter vigil.
3. If you were a tree what kind of, oh sorry about that .. what is the PODest thing you have ever
done?
I set up
WikiIndex, a clearinghouse for reviews
of theological books, good, bad, and ugly. It has a long way to go, but it'll be cool when it's finished. :)
4. What is your favorite quote from Venerable John Henry Newman?
"Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt."
5. If you could ban one hymn from existence, what would it be?
That's a tough one. As a member of
the Society for a Moratorium on the Music of
Marty Haugen and David Haas, there are obviously a lot of songs that grate on my nerves. If I had to pick
one, though, I'd probably pick
"Sing
of the Lord's Goodness" by Ernie Sands.
That’s a serious allegation. Got some proof?
WHAT?!?! You honestly believe that hispanics are overtaking blacks as the leading minority in the country because black people are having so many abortions?
Yes. Well, I’m sure that abortion is not the only reason and after reading what I wrote, I can see how that might have been inferred. However, I think that had abortion remained illegal since 1973, blacks would still outnumber hispanics. Presumably, should hispanic immigration continue at higher rates than African, the result would have been the same irrespective of abortion rates.
But it is quite ironic that this political party, supported blacks at higher percentages than just about any other minority (except perhaps Volvo-driving soccer moms), so vehemently defends a social policy that reduces their numbers at rates greater than just about any other minority.
…a good idea to start rehashing notions of social darwinism?
As Jerry notes, I’ve no intention of defending social darwinism. To the extent that people opposed to abortion have large families, and to the extent that children grow to have values similar to their parents (2 seemingly rational assumptions), more and more people over time will be opposed to abortion. And I consider this end to be a good thing. The method of getting there, however, viz., culling children more likely to grow up to be pro-choice, I find reprehensible.
Cheers!
As someone who finds abortion morally repugnant, I can’t disagree. However, that’s probably not what you meant.
If conservatives have bigger families and are less likely to abort and liberals have smaller families and are more likely to abort, then it only makes sense that conservatives would be outbreeding liberals. Since most conservatives vote Republican and most liberals vote Democrat, it follows that Republicans would be outbreeding Democrats.
I’m not sure what offends you. It’s a matter of statistical analysis. Regardless of how you feel about abortion, it’s not hard to see its affect on voting demographics.
Bush carried florida because his brother used national gaurdsmen and state troopers to keep black people from voting. And then knowingly submitted wrong voting data. If that election happened in any other country in the world we would call it a coup.
Also, he’s not in favor or social darwinism, he’s just happy that his kind of people have an evolutionary advantage over the bad kind of people.
Bush was elected. The Supreme Court decision only put an end to the ridiculous series of recounts that the Sore-Loserman ticket were asking for. Yes, Gore won the popular vote, but that means squat because only the electoral votes count.
As for Steve’s Darwin comment, I’ll let him speak for himself.
But that’s not the point. The thing that I take issue with is the conversation being framed as “democrats are killing their voting base”. That is a profoundly sick statement/
Either that or Thomas Malthus will have the final say for all of us.
Here’s a post by La Sawn Barber, a pro-Bush black woman.
The GOP’s Problem With Blacks
I believe that hispanics soon will overtake (or already have overtaken) blacks as America’s largest minority. This is due almost surely to the higher incidence of abortion among African Americans than among Latina women–presumably in inverse correlation to Catholic or conservative evangelical faith.
This is not to say, of course, that hispanics are particularly conservative, but far more likely than blacks to vote Republican.
As a pro-life father of 5, the idea that Darwin may eventually have the final say in my favor on this issue is just about the only consolation I get these days!
I’m not entirely sure I know what you’re getting at, John. I’m sure it’s supposed to reminiscent of Swift’s “Modest Proposal”, but it’s not immediately clear to me how.
Abortion shouldn’t just be a Republican versus Democrat argument. However, over time one group of people decided that abortion was unconscionable and another decided that it should be available on demand. I applaud Democrats for Life, but I worry that they will become increasingly marginalized. In a lot of Americans’ minds, if you wish to protect life, you have no hope in the Democratic party.
I know someone’s going to bring up the death penalty (soemone always does). I’m against that, too. However, there isn’t a clear divide in the parties over that issue. Besides, there’s a big difference between executing someone who has been convicted by his peers than to abort a child who has done nothing worse than be inconvenient. The number of abortions performed in a year far surpasses the number of executions performed in the average lifetime.
I don’t agree with single-issue voting, but in the case of abortion and related life issues, I can at least understand and sympathize with it.
Latinos are the largest minority on the planet. They took that title last year, as I recall.
Making death partisan is not something I like. “How do these deaths affect voter demographics?” is not a question that I want to see viewed as legitimate. For one, it’s just really really goulish. Also, somewhere down the that road lies the point of killing people who disagree with you. And I don’t want to take that step.
So, why then doesn’t the Republican party support abortion to kill off those damn brown folk that are voting Democratic?
Why is it that only people who argee with you can be acting on their moral principles?
The flip side of that is if people of good moral conscience don’t think about these things, they’ll be caught unawares when those of bad moral conscience have thought about it and act upon it. There’s something to be said for anticipating evil.
Still, I don’t think you have need to be concerned here. The very thing that is reducing Democratic voters is an evil that Republicans want to put an end to.
As for the ghoulish aspect, I don’t think people necessarily started by wondering, “How do these deaths affect voter demographics?” More likely someone noticed trends in statistical data and followed them up. Also, ghoulish or not, this is a serious issue for Democrats to consider. Bush might be easier to oust (or might not have been elected at all) if there were more 18-29 year-old registered Democrats than there are. The Baby Boomers can’t hold power forever. To whom will they pass the torch?
Two critical points of clarification.
1) Bush was never elected.
2) The Republicans don’t neceassarily want to put an end to it, they mostly just want a perpetual source of votes out of an issue they know won’t change in the forseeable future.
Also, do Steve’s comments not make you the least bit uncomfortable? Because they frighten the hell out of me.
“the idea that Darwin may eventually have the final say in my favor on this issue”
That doesn’t immediately set off alarm bells for you?
Well, John, by opposing abortion, Steve would also be opposing Social Darwinism, which would prefer that lower-class minorities eat their young (metaphorically speaking) rather than give us more of their ilk. The founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was an ardent leader of eugenics, for instance.
I took the mention of Social Darwinism to be an ironic one, given that Social Darwinism is quite against traditional Christian teaching (and in America was often targeted against Catholic and Orthodox ethnic groups like the Irish and the Slavs).
I’m not sure if I buy this argument about the Roe Effect, but the numbers I’ve seen elsewhere show that blacks have an abortion rate triple that of the national average, which I cannot easily forget.
WHAT?!?! You honestly believe that hispanics are overtaking blacks as the leading minority in the country because black people are having so many abortions?
Don’t you think the constant massive flow of hispanics into the country might have some role? Have you ever noted the relative number of hispanics in the country who were born outside the country compared to here?
Also, do you really think it’s a good idea to start rehashing notions of social darwinism?
Wow. I thought my observations on the “Roe Effect” were fairly innocent, but am pleased to note that they seemed to have sparked a lively dialogue. This can only be good thing.
John, would it be “ghoulish” to ponder the possible changes to voter demographics due to differences in contraception among various groups? Forget contraception. Reduce it to mere fertility rates in general among different demographic groups. Then would such speculation be “legitimate”? I assume so. What’s the difference? What’s the difference especially if you don’t consider a human fetus a person anyway.
As to:
Also, he’s not in favor or social darwinism, he’s just happy that his kind of people have an evolutionary advantage over the bad kind of people.
“Happy” is a strong word to describe my feelings on this subject. The comfort I take in the notion that pro-life folks might ultimately outbreed pro-choice folks is more akin to comfort I might take in the likelihood of my country winning a war against an inferior agressor (say Japan) but knowing that 10’s of thousands (perhaps 100,000’s) of innocent Japanese civilians might have to die. It’s like: The cause for war is just, but prosecution is inevitably not.
The irony here, of course, is that it isn’t my side that’s causing the “collateral damage.” And I would much prefer to live on equal evolutionary footing with pro-choice folks. (I.e., I would much rather that the means to this disadvantage be severely curtailed.) Unfortunately the only way to do this today is to start “culling” my own kids, or have the state mandate how much fertility I can have–both of which are presumably as unsatisfactory to you as they are to me.
Thanks, Funky, for reissuing what I had hoped would be calming clarification. I can’t really think of a clearer or less volatile way to put it.
Regarding John’s point:
2) The Republicans don’t neceassarily want to put an end to it, they mostly just want a perpetual source of votes out of an issue they know won’t change in the forseeable future.
I have to admit I tend to agree. I know if a pro-choice Repub like Giuliani was nominated in ’08, I would probably vote Dem even if they nominated Satan himself. (I kinda like this contest actually!!) What might change, however, in the foreseeable future is the makeup of the Supreme Court. This could throw this whole issue back where it belongs–to the various states. In all states abortion would likely remain legal–but at least with some restrictions (the US has today among the most “liberal” abortion laws in the western/industrialized world)–and this would be a small but crucial victory for the prolife cause.
OK better shutup…
Pingback: Breeders @ Ales Rarus
Pingback: The Down Side @ Ales Rarus