To really set the record straight about Tolkien and Lewis, it was Lewis who was once an atheist. JRR Tolkien was a devout Roman Catholic. His faith was a very important part of his life from an early age. Tolkien's mother had converted to Catholicism before he was born; because of this, she was estranged from her family. She passed on her faith to her sons. As children, Tolkien and his brother attended a Catholic boy's school. After their mother's early death, a Catholic priest who had befriended the family became their guardian. Tolkien's wife converted to Catholicism to marry him. Tolkien himself attended Mass regularly and often discussed his faith with his friends. One of his sons even became a priest. To say that he was an atheist because he was fascinated by the pre-Christian legends of Northern Europe is simply wrong. Tolkien admired the courage and spirit of the heroes of these legends and wished that England had a similarly heroic and inspiring mythology, but he didn't believe in their pagan faith and was most certainly not un-religious.

The religious connection between Tolkien and Lewis arose out of the literary group that they both belonged to, the Inklings. The Inklings were a group of Oxford academics who met regularly to share their poems, stories, translations, and other creative efforts. Lewis and Tolkien had many conversations about religion over the course of their friendship. It was Tolkien who got Lewis thinking seriously about Christianity. Lewis was talking about the power of myths when Tolkien pointed out that the Gospels had the same power, with the added benefit that they were true myths. This was something that Lewis hadn't considered. The seed that Tolkien planted in Lewis's imagination eventually led him to convert to Christianity and Lewis ultimately became a member of the Church of England.

As for the Christian content of the Narnia books, it took me a few readings as a child to latch onto it. Realizing that Aslan was a stand-in for Christ didn't affect my enjoyment of the books. I loved Lewis's creation and like other letter-writers wished that I could visit Narnia, too. (It beat the hell out of the concrete block purgatory of a suburban middle school.)

Boy, does this make me long for the days when the biggest controversy over Christmas was over how materialistic it had become and whether this ruined the holiday's sacredness.

I guess that makes it a "bar" ... although Advil is my drug of choice if I take the kids there (staves off the inevitable headache).

Seriously, though, I would not patronize an establishment that expressed this kind of hostility towards some of its customers.

These doctors are the soulmates of the pharmacists who refuse to give out emergency contraception for "moral" reasons. The issue in both cases isn't really morality. It's control.

It is perfectly legal for unmarried women to be artificially inseminated. Ms. Benitez is an adult who is capable of forming her own judgements about the wisdom and morality of getting pregnant out of wedlock. Although we may disagree with her choices, we cannot prevent her from making them. It is her right to start a family whenever she chooses to do so.

These doctors wanted to stop Ms. Benitez from exercising this right. They did not want her to get pregnant because they disapproved of her sexual orientation and/or marital status (taking their arguments at face value). At the very least, they wanted to jerk her around by making it more difficult and expensive for her to get pregnant. In other words, they wanted to control her reproductive behavior because she's a member of a group that they dislike. If they weren't prejudiced against her, they wouldn't have cared that she's a single lesbian and would have done the insemination without comment.

For some reason, the idea that women are capable of making their own moral decisions about sexuality and reproduction scares the pants off conservatives. So they want to deny women this right. They want to force women to bear children by denying access to contraception and prevent women who they don't like from having children, all in the name of morality. They won't admit that what they really want is the power to order all things as they see fit, regardless of whose rights they trample on.

"Girls as Grantmakers" is an organization for girls in Allegheny County, PA (i.e., the Pittsburgh metropolitan area).

The old saying that you catch more flies with a teaspoon of honey than a gallon of vinegar certainly goes for the breast vs. bottle debate. Making bottle-feeders feel guilty is NOT a good way to promote breastfeeding. It just makes them upset and less willing to try nursing with their next kid.

A friend from high school had tremendous problems breastfeeding her first child and finally gave up after six weeks of heroic effort. Afterwards, she had to endure all kinds of wild accusations from the La Leche League set that she was abusing her baby by bottle-feeding. The time and effort she put into her unsuccessful attempt to nurse meant nothing to these women. I nursed my kids but supplemented with formula and heard much the same sort of nonsense. All of our kids are doing fine, by the way, and I haven't noticed any difference in intelligence between the bottle-fed and breast-fed.

Parents are going to feed their babies in whatever way they believe is best for their situation. It doesn't matter whether it's breast, bottle, or some combination of the two -- as long as the kid is healthy and well-nourished, who cares?

By all means give yourselves a pat on the back for breastfeeding. It's a great thing to do for your child and yourself. But exclusive breastfeeders need to recognize that there are many women who can't do this and that you have no idea what their personal situations are. A little understanding would go a long way. After all, everyone's goal is the same: raising happy and healthy kids.