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.
“the deaths of 1.6M innocent humans via abortion is never justifiable”
Well, maybe, except there are lots of people who would dispute both the innocence and the humanity of fetuses, and objecting on the grounds that abortion is “never justifiable” comes with a built in assumption that it’s something that needs to be justified in the first place.
I don’t care to get into an argument over what constitutes humanity, because I think humanity is a negotiable quality at every stage of life while the Catholic church thinks that humanity is nonnegotiable at every stage. There isn’t anywhere to go with that because I don’t recognize the authority of the Catholic church, nor do I agree with it.
I think everybody should be free to oppose abortion, but everybody should also be free to practice it. If Catholics have a problem with abortion, then Catholics shouldn’t practice it. Leave the rest of us be. It’s God’s job to cleanse the world and your job to let God cleanse you.
Legalizing abortion does not force anyone to practice it. Criminalizing abortion does force people not to practice it who otherwise want to, or it at least forces punishments on them for breaking someone else’s ethical code without harming that someone else.
You can say your opposition to abortion is a defense of the undefended unborn, but then you have to explain both what makes a fetus defensible (which is disputable) and why you are obligated to defend it. If your explanation relies on the authority of the Church or divine decree, it carries no weight with people outside the Church or people who do not believe in God. My experience was that I opposed abortion as a Christian, but as soon as I left Christianity I could no longer rationalize that position because it was bound up with my sense of divine authority.
I realize that there are atheists and non-Christians who oppose abortion, too, but their arguments always depend on an inexplicable sentimentality that is, in my opinion, perfectly decent, though not something that can be argued objectively.
My main push here is not to change anyone’s mind but to fight dogmatic beliefs of any kind.
Of course, you might argue that my affection for freedom is a dogmatic belief, and you might be correct.
No, I wouldn’t argue that affection for freedom is necessarily a dogmatic belief. (It could easily been in there with I have an affection for ice cream and baseball.) However, I would strenuously argue that your opposition to “dogmatic beliefs of any kind” is a far more dogmatic belief… and a humorous one at that.
Perhaps if we replaced “dogmatic” with “axiomatic” then it wouldn’t sound so… err… religious. But it wouldn’t change the fact that “dogmatic” beliefs are the foundation of any thoughtful world view. And thus, our various dogma/axiom/faith/-based views are at bottom all alike and differ only in content.
Best regards
Ack! So here I am at work with a few minutes to spare, knowing there were some rather intense responses to one of my rather intense comments on a post below and thinking I could toss out a response or two, but lo and behold I find that comment page is blocked by the content filters at my workplace! (So much for misbehaving.) At any rate, maybe it’s better that I not get to comment more down there, since it’s a topic that was covered heavily a while back and, as somebody mentioned, the fur really flew. Seeing as none of us are likely to have changed our minds, I don’t see any point in rehashing. So maybe I’ll just step out of that one.
Anyway… regarding this post…
I am really curious about this whole “Culture of Death” versus “Culture of Life” thing. I assume that because of my positions on abortion (it ought to be “safe, legal, and rare”) and embryonic stem cell research (go for it!) that most conservative Christians would consider me a member of the “Culture of Death.”
This puzzles me, because I am quite fond of life in most of its forms (snakes aren’t my favorites, nor SS officers or serial killers). So I have spent much time wondering why I don’t fit with the “Culture of Life” crowd. Then it struck me the other day that this “Culture of Life” is focused almost entirely* on the reproductive aspects of life. Rather than speculate, I just thought I’d throw that observation out and ask all of you legitimate, real-life conservative Christians why you think that is.
*The one exception, euthanasia, seems not to be as big a deal. There is much more weeping and gnashing of teeth over abortion and embryos than over ill and elderly people who just want to die. Even the opposition to euthanasia I have heard is not so much along the lines of “we can’t let these people die” but, “we can’t let this turn into a slippery slope where the old and infirm are killed involuntarily.” And I would agree with that.
And John, you are absolutely preaching to choir… as it were. This war was debatable (as Jerry notes), but, in the end, was not justifiable (and was opposed in no uncertain terms by the Holy Father… btw, I’m not Catholic, I just respect the guy and usually agree with him).
That figure of 100,000 is not well supported, however. This source gives a current range between ~14,000 and ~17,000–numbers far more in line with what I’ve seen/heard/read elsewhere. Not that this changes anything fundamentally. A single casualty (in an unjust war) is 1 too many for me. But that 100,000 number is getting thrown around quite a bit and does seem to needlessly overstate the position–which in turn risks making a righteous case weaker.
Best regards
At the risk of sounding like a broken record player:
There are at least a hundred thousand Iraqi corpses that silently contest the notion that Republicans advance a culture of life.
Hmm…
Well, let me just go down the list of issues already raised, and the ones you add. Call it my “Culture of Life/Death” scorecard.
abortion: A procedure I wouldn’t want to watch, but then the same is true of most things that happen in an operating room. I think it’s a pathetic excuse for birth control simply for economic reasons, but an age old human practice that ought not be criminalized because people should be free to control their reproduction, even if that means abortion.
embryonic stem cell research: A fascinating line of research and experimentation that I have no ethical problems with whatsoever. It should be pursued wherever and whenever possible. If it doesn’t pan out, I’d rather know that we tried than not.
capital punishment: Not a deterrent but I honestly think there are some people for whom this is the only solution we, as a society, have. Aside from paying to keep them incarcerated for the rest of their lives.
war: A human tradition, always a tragedy, sometimes a necessity, but a solution that should be avoided if possible. I do not believe we will ever be free from war.
working conditions: They should always be humane; pay should always be reasonable, whatever that means.
euthanasia: If people want to die, I don’t see a reason to stop them. However, no one should make that decision for anyone else. Make a healthcare declaration or “living will” if you’re worried.
A fundamental part of my view of humanity is that nobody comes with a “right to life” or a right to anything. Rights are given or fought for but they are not intrinsic to existence. I have a desire to live but not a right. I will defend my own life, and others are free to defend my life, but one must create a different rationale to say that others are obliged to defend my life. (Yes, I think such a rationale can be argued.) This is perhaps unfortunate but I think it’s accurate. Life is precarious. We who are ensconced safely in the modern world forget that too easily.
Steve–
My “ought” doesn’t come from anywhere but my own opinion. Remove the “ought” and replace it with “in my opinion, should”:
“practice that, in my opinion, should not be criminalized because people should be free to control their reproduction”
As for how that connects with “nobody comes with…a right to anything,” recall the other phrase “rights are given.”
In the case of abortion, I prefer to give the right to the adults and not to the fetus. That view doesn’t come with any requirement that anyone agree with it precisely because it comes from nowhere but my own opinion and argument.
However, the only arguments I ever hear against abortion from “pro-life” people are called down from on high as religious dogmas, and those, in their minds, do require agreement because they are considered authoritative in themselves.
My main push here is not to change anyone’s mind but to fight dogmatic beliefs of any kind.
Of course, you might argue that my affection for freedom is a dogmatic belief, and you might be correct. But I think about “freedom” all the time and constantly wonder whether it’s a good thing. And sometimes I think that none of us are really free, that we only create an illusion of freedom in our minds. So my affection for freedom, while it’s important, isn’t so holy that I don’t question it on a regular basis.
Theo,
We (those of us blathering on) are to blame for your mis-interpretation. The culture of life (as coined by the Holy Father… ya know… JPII, I think in his encylcical Humana Vitae) includes opposition to the death penalty in nearly all practical cases, extreme prejudice against war, and promotion generally of humane living and working conditions worldwide, among many other things I don’t remember right off.
It should not, therefore, be construed to pertain only to reproduction. And hence our (many of Funky’s regular commentators’) ambivalence to the results of the ’04 election. In that, there is reason to hope for “better” on a couple of fronts, while reason to despair on quite a few others.
Though I would never to presume to speak for you (you do that quite well enough :-), I think you would find many aspects of the “Culture of Life” to be attractive.
And I think we could fundamentally agree that these are issues better fought for in the hearts and minds of individuals and not thru the power of gov’t (e.g., Saudi style). But where the power of gov’t can be applied to stem “evil” (insert whatever definition you like), I believe we should try to use it–only fully recognizing that this is a useless tool to change the hearts and minds of men and women.
Cheers!
Theo:
Geesh, I just have to get this in too. About:
So my affection for freedom, while it’s important, isn’t so holy that I don’t question it on a regular basis.
suggests that you think dogma means something one cannot allow oneself to doubt. I think that is misleading. Any healthy faith (well axiom/belief system/dogma) must encounter doubt or it will weaken, wither, and die. Hardly a day goes by that I don’t doubt mine–it keeps them (i.e., the “axioms”) healthy.
Cheers!
Theo:
I am trying to reconcile:
practice that ought not be criminalized because people should be free to control their reproduction
with:
A fundamental part of my view of humanity is that nobody comes with a “right to life” or a right to anything. Rights are given or fought for but they are not intrinsic to existence.
The part that bothers me is the “ought” as in “ought to be free to…”
We may assume that such a right is given, but of course by whom? Or that such a right is fought for, but, again, by whom? But the bigger question is really the “ought”? It sounds rather intrinsic to me.
Perhaps we ought (no pun intended) re-read “ought” as “is more aesthetically pleasing to me.” I still don’t see how this gets us around the intrinsic nature of the “sensibility.” If we say: “I’m aesthetically pleased that folks be free to control their reproduction.” Then are we not implicitly adding: “… and others ought also to be similarly pleased.” That is, at least if we want it to mean something more than “I dislike broccoli.”
Parenthetically, I would agree that folks “ought to be free” to control their reproduction. It’s just that I take this “right” to be less than inviolable when the well-being of another is involved.
Cheers!
BTW click the homepage for some great (and some not so great) misheard lyrics…
When I say dogma, I’m thinking of this dictionary definition:
“An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true.”
In that sense your substitution of “axiomatic” would not be to far off the mark. How is resistance to dogma dogmatic? Take what appears to be the most popular issue around here right now: When does “human” life begin? I think the answer to that question is variable and negotiable. You think it’s not. Your view is the dogmatic one, not mine, because you’re establishing an absolute truth. I don’t think an absolute truth exists on that question.
Now you are probably going to come along and say that thinking something is “variable and negotiable” is itself a dogma/axiom/whatever. But to do that you have to make the words mean the opposite of what they actually mean. If everything, even anti-dogmas/anti-axioms are dogmas/axioms, then what are dogmas/axioms? Congratulations, the term is now meaningless.
I find that this kind of terminological inversion is very popular with religious people who communicate with non-religious people. If we say we have no beliefs, they say that unbelief is a kind of belief. If we say we have no gods, they say that claiming to have no gods is just a different way of naming our gods. If we say we don’t like dogma, they say that not liking dogma is a dogma. And so on. No matter what a non-religious person says, a religious person will always be there to say that the non-religious person is in fact contradicting himself because it is fundamentally impossible to be non-religious. But the only way they can express that fundamental impossibility is by stretching the meanings of words to encompass their opposites, which they then justify with the original assertion that it is fundamentally impossible to be non-religious. Circularity anyone?
This drives me up the wall. I don’t go around telling religious people that they’re just atheists in disguise. Religious people aren’t just atheists in disguise. Conversely, atheists are not just religious people in disguise, either. Certainly the experience of being human comes with much that is existentially the same for all of us, but simply responding to the same existential circumstances does not make our responses equal.
Yes, John, hence why a lot of us don’t like Bush.
Note that Steve said “an extreme prejudice against war”. War can, however, still be justified. However, the deaths of 1.6M innocent humans via abortion is never justifiable, and Kerry’s abetting and aiding the war against the unborn is prima facie unacceptable to the Church. When a dictator is suspected of violating a UN armistice agreement, it is at least debatable whether war is justified. Never so for abortion, hence why I reluctantly voted for Bush.
Yikes gotta stay away from less-thans and greater-thans… that last sentence shoud read:
And thus, our various dogma/axiom/faith/[insert least unpleasant synonym]-based views are at bottom all alike and differ only in content.
Bye
[Oh, oh, this is abuse… for the argument you need 12a… just down the corridor…]
Aiight,
It is objectively obvious that a unique mammalian organism begins a conception. My axiom is that each human organism has a right to be born and cared for. You say this right is variable or negotiable. Your view sounds less axiomatic, but only because it’s based on a hidden axiom that says no one has intrinsic rights. We’re really comparing two apples, but you’re only showing the orange in your hand.
But as to the larger question of “terminological inversion,” I don’t think I’m trying to make any word mean what it doesn’t mean. It may force a non-intuitive result, but a valid result just the same.
If we accept presupposition to be a synonym (more or less) of axiom, and axiom to mean (more or less) dogma. Then how absurd is it to say that I have no presuppostions? Rather, I think.
Theo, you don’t actually expect anyone to believe (no pun intended) that you have no beliefs. You got zillions of them, and express them quite well (seriously) both here and on your home turf.
I do not say it is fundamentally impossible to be non-religious. What I am saying is that it is fundamentally impossible to have a rational system of thought and not have axiomatic beliefs. And maybe that’s a statement of the obvious. But it may not be a very well advertised obvious. I’m not saying that atheists are just theists in diguise. I am saying that these systems of thought are closely related. They start with different presuppositions to be sure, but presuppostions none the less, and presuppositions neither more nor less rationally defensible–just pure, raw, unbridled axiom. (If one were objectively stronger than the other, one would surely have won out by now, at least among smart people. And there are far too many smart people on both sides of this issue. Too many dumb ones too, but that’s a different problem.)
Oddly enough, these diverse sets of presuppostions lead us to the same conclusions a good bit of the time, which gets us back circuitously somewhere halfway near to the “Culture of Life-n-Death”.
G’nite.