But after a few years of blogging, podcasting, and speaking at skeptics’ conferences, I began to get emails from strangers who detailed their sexual fantasies about me. I was occasionally grabbed and groped without consent at events. And then I made the grave mistake of responding to a fellow skeptic’s YouTube video in which he stated that male circumcision was just as harmful as female genital mutilation (FGM). I replied to say that while I personally am opposed to any non-medical genital mutilation, FGM is often much, much more damaging than male circumcision.

The response from male atheists was overwhelming. This is one example:

“honestly, and i mean HONESTLY.. you deserve to be raped and tortured and killed. swear id laugh if i could”

I started checking out the social media profiles of the people sending me these messages, and learned that they were often adults who were active in the skeptic and atheist communities. They were reading the same blogs as I was and attending the same events. These were “my people,” and they were the worst.

It gets worse from there, with a cameo by Richard Dawkins. It’s an unflattering cameo of Dawkins, but when someone is as uncareful and irresponsible a thinker as Dawkins it doesn’t really surprise.

So Emily’s article the other day, “Women, Know your limits,” named after the Harry Enfield sketch she embeds, showed up as a nice, well, not riposte, per se, because Emily and Ms. Watson are quite simpatico on the question of whether or not women are capable of rational thought, but it was a nice follow-up.

A great passage from Emily’s piece:

Try as I might to stop it, my mind continues to wander to a halcyon future when liberal politicians acknowledge that women own small businesses, have investments, and worry about pesky things like job creation, debt, and runaway entitlement spending.

In that future, they also recognize that women are rational creatures, with thoughts on war and peace, education and energy policy, trial lawyers and unions. In other words, they recognize that there’s a veritable laundry list of issues we consider more important than government-sponsored birth control.

Heck, since we’re dreaming, let’s just go for it and imagine a day where all politicians show some real concern for women’s health by pledging to put some of those government research dollars to work studying the many links between birth control and cancer.

Baseline minimum, I’m hoping for a future where presidents of the United States don’t think it’s anything other than nauseating to equate the act of voting with losing one’s virginity…where fathers of two young girls don’t have campaign ads mocking abstinence…and where those entrusted with safeguarding the Constitution realize that women might—just might—be more worried about the government violating the First Amendment and depriving Christians of their right to live their beliefs than they are about seeing Big Bird lose his government paycheck.

Emily’s closer, and Ms. Watson could have gone this route also, is that the people they are writing about have a view not unlike that expressed in this Harry Enfield sketch:

Fra Angelico's depiction of Mary's coronation by her Son, the King of all.

“Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terrible as an army set in array?” (Song of Songs 6:10)

One week ago we celebrated the Assumption of Mary, body and soul, into heaven upon the end of her earthly life. Today we celebrate her as Queen of Heaven and Earth.

There may be a “War on Women,” but it is not being waged by the side that holds women in such esteem as this.

Dr. Scott Hahn, professor of theology here at Franciscan University, talks about how the Assumption indicates her Queenship in this video from his St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology.

Mary was assumed into heaven—taken up into heaven—so that she might reign as queen over all of creation; or, rather, so that she might be accessible to all as our Mother, caring for us and bringing us closer to her Son.

There is no creature so hated and so feared by the demons of hell than the Blessed Mother. Jesus? They knew He was Lord of the cosmos: but Mary… she was a mere creature. She was supposed to be one they could (and would) sway and cause to choose sin. She was supposed to fall like the rest of us. But she did not.

She is God perfect work of art. She is the channel through which God became man. Her “yes” to God enabled Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. Her patient suffering at the foot of the cross, seeing her Son, whom she loved with a love this world has not otherwise experienced, bloodied and crucified and dying, won for her a crown of martyrdom. Her consistent care for all of God children—they are her children too, by virtue of her motherhood of God’s Son—shows her a true queen.

And this is not some gradual development of an extra-biblical practice created by the Catholics. From the middle of the third century, before we even had the Bible as such, we had a hymn we know today in the West as “Sub Tuum Praesidium,” or “Beneath Thy Protection,”:

Under thy protection
We seek refuge,
Holy Mother of God;
despise not our petitions
in our needs
but from all dangers
deliver us always,
Virgin, Glorious and Blest.

Mary, from the earliest days of Christianity, has been honored as a special intercessor to her Son.

Considering the manner in which knowledge and culture was passed along at that time, could it be because during that period after Christ ascended into heaven, leaving Mary and the nascent Church, Mary was honored and revered by the Apostles and their disciples as a special intercessor with the Ascended Lord, her Son? And if, as tradition indicates, Mary was then assumed into heaven upon her death, would not the Apostles and disciples have taken this as a cue that their veneration of Mary as intercessor was appropriate and good? If we hold that Tradition is the faithful handing-on of the heritage of the Church, guided and protected by the Holy Spirit (and we do), then what was held to be the true testimony of the Apostles at that early stage would certainly still be true today!

Pope Pius XII wrote in Ad Caeli Reginam:

From these considerations, the proof develops on these lines: if Mary, in taking an active part in the work of salvation, was, by God’s design, associated with Jesus Christ, the source of salvation itself, in a manner comparable to that in which Eve was associated with Adam, the source of death, so that it may be stated that the work of our salvation was accomplished by a kind of “recapitulation,”[49] in which a virgin was instrumental in the salvation of the human race, just as a virgin had been closely associated with its death; if, moreover, it can likewise be stated that this glorious Lady had been chosen Mother of Christ “in order that she might become a partner in the redemption of the human race”;[50] and if, in truth, “it was she who, free of the stain of actual and original sin, and ever most closely bound to her Son, on Golgotha offered that Son to the Eternal Father together with the complete sacrifice of her maternal rights and maternal love, like a new Eve, for all the sons of Adam, stained as they were by his lamentable fall,”[51] then it may be legitimately concluded that as Christ, the new Adam, must be called a King not merely because He is Son of God, but also because He is our Redeemer, so, analogously, the Most Blessed Virgin is queen not only because she is Mother of God, but also because, as the new Eve, she was associated with the new Adam.

Mary, far from taking our attention off of Our Lord, leads us directly to Him and shows us the way to Him. She does this as Queen of our Hearts. Fly to Mary for refuge. Be a child in her arms. Let her be a mother to you. Share with her your hurts and fears and uncertainties. Let her wrap you in her mantle and comfort you. Let her reign in your heart so that she might herald the entrance of her Son, Our Lord, the King of all.

Last election cycle, broadcast TV news reports were twice as favorable to Obama, according to the Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University. That was no surprise: The creators donated money to Obama’s campaign at a wildly disproportionate rate, reported the Washington Examiner.

“The World According to Newsweek” shows how one magazine tried to characterize political opponents. What are the reporters trying to get us to think this time?

Myth 1: Mitt Romney is a “Thurston Howell III” rich guy facing off against Barack Obama, the community organizer-in-chief.

There is no doubt that Romney is a wealthy man. But the truth is, this election is just like every other presidential election: Rich guy vs. rich guy. The Bushes were rich. Clinton was Rich. Reagan was rich.

Obama, too, is a very rich man: estimates put his net worth at $10.5 million. Obama is a multimillionaire with multimillionaire friends who lives a wealthy lifestyle. He has spent more time vacationing away from home than the last president ever did; he also golfs more, and has held more high-dollar fundraisers.

Rolling Stone noticed that serving the wealthiest Americans was his “first presidential act” in the article “Obama’s big sellout” and Politico called him “BP’s favorite candidate.”

Obama recently tried to contrast his poverty to Romney’s wealth when he said he and Michelle didn’t have the “luxury” for one parent to stay at home with their kids like the Romneys did. Talk about out of touch. The Obamas had plenty of money and the Romneys’ choice was the one more in line with poorer Americans, according to the census figures.

Myth 2: Mormons can’t be trusted.

I totally understand why people worry about Mormonism. I love Dwight Longenecker’s post: “I Am Not Mormon: Here’s Why.”

Salon Magazine reported that “Latter-day Saints are leaving the fold in droves,” and cited at least one Mormon leader who agrees. The article says the Internet is to blame: It is too easy to find the historical evidence against Mormon beliefs.

No doubt: Mormon beliefs are odd and fantastic to Christians. But our nation was founded by Deists and Freemasons whose beliefs were also odd and fantastic. And it seems clear in 2012 that a member of a religious minority who is motivated to protect religious liberty will be better for religious people on questions of faith than a Christian who is actively trying to take our religious liberty away.

Myth 3: There is a “likeability gap” between Obama and Romney.

While Obama is friendly and affable, according to news stories, Mitt is stuffy and prickly.  I first came across this myth when I read a report about an interview in which Mitt snapped at a reporter. I played the clip to see the damning evidence and saw … nothing extraordinary.

Huffington Post blogger Jason Linkins had a similar experience, reading about Mitt’s peculiar anger, then looking for himself and finding nothing remarkable.

The real reason for the so-called “likeability gap”: People who are polarized by their politics are convinced not only that their opponents are mistaken about legislation, but that they are nasty, unlikeable people.

This goes both ways. In certain circles, it is grave matter to admit that Obama is likeable. And on the other side, Daily Show producer and novelist Michael Rubens wrote in Salon recently about how surprised he was to find out that even the most extreme of his ideological enemies were likeable.

Journalists always assume there must be a likeability gap separating their guy because, after all, how could anyone like that guy they oppose?

Myth 4: There is a GOP War Against Women.

Here is an issue where you can clearly see the press fighting on Obama’s side. Headlines often introduce the  Obama campaign phrase “war on women” when no one in the story has said it.

But what is the war on women? A war ought to involve a concerted attack on an enemy, and casualties.

But on the abortion front, the pro-life movement’s movers and shakers are mostly women and they do amazing work for women.

Meanwhile in this “war,” the casualties are all on the pro-abortion side. More than half of the children who are aborted worldwide are girls (“more than half” because aborting girls is a “huge problem” in several countries).

The other front in the “war on women” is the Catholic opposition to contraception. Obama’s administration wants to force Catholic institutions to violate our consciences and pay for contraceptives and abortion-causing drugs.

This is also an odd “war.” The side that wants women to continually assault their bodies with hormones in order to be always sexually available to men, sacrificing their own libidos in the process, are counted as being on the side of women. Those of us who say, “Gee … can we at least not have to pay for that?” are supposedly thereby “declaring war on women.”

So here we have just four myths. If Americans want to oppose Mitt Romney for a substantive issue, they should by all means do so. But let’s make sure it is a fair fight … and not simply buy a story.

With all the pressure on women to adhere to impossible standards of beauty set by starving, chain-smoking 20 year-old models in New York City, one would think that there would be nothing new under the “diet fad” sun.

Well, not so fast. Brides-to-be are resorting to feeding tubes to lose weight and fit into the their Brides Magazine dream gown. Yup, that’s right, the same feeding tube your sick grandmother was forced to use in the hospital is now a $1,500 pre-wedding day diet program import from Europe, where it has been popularized for years. Now American brides can skip the gym and meal-time discipline to drop 10lbs in 10 days.

This quick fix seems to be a perfect analogy for the current state of marriage in America – everyone wants a perfect marriage, but few are willing to put in the hard work and make a daily commitment to maintaining and nurturing it.

Alas, as with all things that seem too good to be true, there are some drawbacks to the feeding tube diet (besides explaining to friends and co-workers why you have a tube up your nose).

It also causes bad breath and constipation. Not exactly the stuff of a romantic wedding night.

If you didn’t, here’s the clip.

CNN has a complete transcript here.

When discussing Romney’s campaign and how/whether it’s reaching women, Rosen said,

What you have is Mitt Romney running around the country saying, well, you know, my wife tells me that what women really care about are economic issues. And when I listen to my wife, that’s what I’m hearing.

Guess what, his wife has actually never worked a day in her life. She’s never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a majority of the women in this country are facing in terms of how do we feed our kids, how do we send them to school and how do we — why do we worry about their future?

The statement was pretty bad, though she may indeed have not meant to come across the way that she did. But many people understood her to be attacking Ann Romney’s decision to be a stay at home mom and suggesting that is wasn’t real work. On the contrary, raising five children is more work than many many people are willing to do, as evidenced by widespread intentionally low birthrates.

Add to this that Ann Romney comes across as a lovely person and that she’s battled cancer and MS and you’ve got a major PR crisis.

But it gets better. (Depends of course on what you mean by “better.”) The Catholic League responded with the following tweet:

Lesbian Dem Hilary Rosen tells Ann Romney she never worked a day in her life. Unlike Rosen, who had to adopt kids, Ann raised 5 of her own.

Ouch. Not only is this not Catholic in any way, shape, or form. It’s simply unnecessary. With whom Rosen chooses to share her bed has nothing to do with her statement on Ann Romney and her experience with economics. Additionally, are we now suggesting that there’s something unCatholic about adoption? If so, then we’re going to have to revisit the core of our theology which is divine filiation…which is to say a type of adoption.

The Catholic League has done a good job defending the Catholic Church on many issues. But the type of response exemplified in the above tweet makes the same fundamental communications error that Rosen made. It’s completely off message and ad hominem (ad mulierem, to be precise).

It also sounds hateful/spiteful, not unlike Rosen’s comments. And that’s another sign of bad communications strategy. When you start spewing negative emotion, any constructive (even if critical) message is lost.

To a casual observer, the takeaway from CL’s tweet is that the Catholic Church doesn’t like people who are attracted to the same sex. And that the Catholic Church doesn’t support adoption. Neither of these conclusions are true. Meanwhile, any commentary on Rosen’s remarks about Ann Romney is completely lost.

Some other thoughts on Rosen’s remarks:

1. Why does she assume that someone without professional experience can’t have valid opinions about economics? Plenty of women who are not economists and financial advisers do a fine job of managing family finances. And plenty of professionals (economists and others) have been terribly wrong about the economy.

2. I continue to meet interesting people who have a depth of knowledge beyond their professional or day-to-day occupations. Some of the smartest people I’ve known never went to college. It’s the height of just about every -ism to judge someone’s intellectual understanding based on a few outward assumptions about them.

3. As I wrote/tweeted yesterday, “Will someone with 5 small children at home please offer Hilary Rosen the opportunity to babysit for 24 hours? And let her pay your bills etc.”

Nancy Keenan scolds E. J. Dionne for not pandering enough to women in his column last week on the Department of Health and Human Services and some of our conscience hang-ups. (See George Weigel for a not-to-be-missed response to the same column, by the way.)

The president of NARAL Pro-Choice America writes in a letter titled by the Washington Post “Bad Deal for Catholic Women”:

Here is what the so-called “compromise” that the bishops want would mean: Millions of women who work as nurses,

administrative staffers, janitors and professors will lose out on the promise of insurance coverage of birth control. Keep in mind, even the vast majority of Catholic women use contraception, underscoring how out of touch the bishops are.

The argument then is: You’re not allowed to stand for something. I know we all need jobs, but these women are choosing to work at a Catholic institution, which presumably does just that. And if they don’t they aren’t St. Joseph’s Catholic Hospital anymore (right, Phoenix?).

Thanks, though, for helping further elucidate what exactly you do mean with all this war on women stuff.

But including such details wouldn’t fit the false and insulting “War on Women” narrative.