Infinite Space, Infinite God

Release Date: August 15, 2007

Explore the worlds of Infinite Space, Infinite God. Meet genetically engineered chimeras and aliens who wonder what a human religion holds for them. Share the doubts, trials and triumphs of humans who find their journeys in time and space are also journeys in faith.

Experience spine-tingling adventure. Marvel at technological miracles—and miracles that transcend technology—and meet the writers who made a leap of faith and dared to incorporate familiar religion with fantastic universes.

Entertaining and thought-provoking, Infinite Space, Infinite God represents the best in SF tradition. Faith-filled fiction for readers that think. More about this soon to be released anthology edited by Karina & Robert Fabian, visit FabianSpace.com.

Christopher Hitchens vs God

In yesterday's column by Michael Medved at Townhall.com on Hitchens vs God, who is the author of "god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything" (Hitchens is the author, that is, not God, capital g), Medved makes some great points. Evidently he had Hitchens on his show and brought up some inconsistencies in the author's position. For example, Medved writes:

In describing himself and his fellow atheists near the opening of his book, Hitchens declares: "We are not immune to the lure of wonder and mystery and awe: we have music and art and literature, and find that the serious ethical dilemmas are better handled by Shakespeare and Tolstoy and Schiller and Dostoyevsky and George Eliot than in the mythical morality tales of the holy books. Literature, not scripture, sustains the mind and – since there is no other metaphor - the soul." Ironically, all the literary giants he describes as ethical guides were themselves guided, or at least informed, by their deep belief in God—in fact two of them (Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky) were full-out religious mystics. How can Hitchens unblushingly look to these writers as the right source for handling "serious ethical dilemmas" when their lives and work showed the unmistakable influence of religious teaching which he elsewhere holds in rank contempt? (my emphasis, lgp)

Nicely put. But an even more elementary point that undermines Hitchen's argument is in the line I emphasized in the above paragraph, and that is Hitchen's blindness to the fact that scripture is literature. And as such it has shaped and informed untold instances of beauty, wonder, goodness, bravery, etc. His argument then becomes as vacuous as the statement: "writers are not Great: How Literature Poisons Everything." Well, duh. Bad literature does. So does bad religion.

Okay, now this is ridiculous...

I think I'll add a little buddha too...

Episcopal Minister Adds Islam to Christianity

SEATTLE (AP) -- The Reverend Ann Holmes Redding, an Episcopal priest for 20 year, says she became a Muslim last year, but still considers herself a Christian as well.

Redding, who says she accepted Islam after being profoundly moved by Muslim prayers, is to begin teaching the New Testament at Seattle University this fall.

Until recently, she was director of faith formation at St. Mark's Episcopal Cathedral.

Western Washington Bishop Vincent Warner says he accepts Redding as both an Episcopal priest and a Muslim, and finds the interfaith possibilities exciting.

The 55-year-old Redding says she doesn't feel that she has to resolve the differences between her two faiths -- especially over whether Jesus was God or just a prophet -- and hopes sharing her story can help ease religious tensions.

Religion, Art, and Tolerance

It's a seasonal occurrence.

Every few months some artist will - in the name of freedom or creativity or plain ol' belligerence - push the boundaries of common decency. A crucifix submerged in a jar of urine. A chocolate Jesus. Dung covered something-or-other. It'll happen again. You'll be offended. You can bet on it.

And even though we can rightly be appalled by what many of us consider patently anti-religious PDAs (public displays of absurdity) we must also note that we live in a free society. The two go hand in hand. I have the right to be offended. You have the right to offend me.

We're not alone in this. It's a universal tension. I just read an article by Indian columnist Vir Sanghvi of the Hindustan Times titled Art, Tolerance and Religion (thus the title of this post). Evidently an artist in Baroda (Western India) was arrested for painting allegedly obscene pictures of some Hindu religious figures. The move has been widely condemned among Indian society, news magazines, and television media. Sanghvi notes:

Most of us will agree that all of this [the arrest of painter MF Husain] is terrible and deserves the condemnation it has received. Few people will also dispute that the behaviour of the authorities in Baroda was reprehensible. . . . Of course, we're all liberals and, of course, we stand for freedom of expression etc etc. You don't have to be an intellectual giant or a moral philosopher to say that art students should not be arrested or painters persecuted. But are we right to see the issue in liberal vs reactionary terms? Let's take the simplest example. Every liberal I know argued that MF Husain had the right to paint a naked Saraswati or a nude Bharat Mata. Yet, hardly any liberal of my acquaintance extended the same principle to the Danish cartoons.

Why? Because -IMO- the Muslims that denounced the cartoonists and those who published them were willing to kill the offenders and any who sided with them. Sanghvi is right. This isn't a liberal vs reactionary debate. The real issue is harmful threat. Am I right? It's not that we hold double standards - we all do! It's that we kowtow to the most dangerous bully on the global block. So we equivocate. Make excuses for the offended party. Try to appease the bully so we don't get hurt.

Again, it's not the double standard that's wrong or being "liberal" or "reactionary." In a free society (read free-market) the give and take over what's offensive is expected, even healthy. I know next to nothing about Hinduism and so am not at all worried about a naked Saraswati or Bharat Mata; I don't know who these figures are, so go ahead, paint away. I'm liberal! But when it comes to my Jesus, then don't you dare! There's the double standard. I'm okay with that.

Now in a free society governed by free-market economics if you offend me and I make a stink, then maybe you back down, you get de-funded, you go away. Or maybe I end up looking foolish. Either way, the louder we complain, the bigger the result - one way or the other. The marketplace of ideas has it's own rules so let's put truth and absurdity in the ring and let them have at it.

In fact, this happens on a regular basis. I know that sooner or later another PDA will make the news. It's a seasonal occurrence. Will I be offended? Probably. Do I have a double standard? You bet. I truly do not care how or if you portray Islam's prophet; but I do care deeply about the portrayal of ours.

The difference is this. I'm not going to kill you for disagreeing with me.

Bible in Georgia Schools? Teach It!

When it comes to biblical literacy, Georgia doesn't want any child left behind.

First the news...From Washingtonpost.com:

Georgia's public schools walk a delicate line as they decide whether to offer the nation's first state-funded Bible classes. . . . The state school board approved curriculum in March for teaching the Bible in Georgia's high schools.

According to the AP article, the implementation of the program is up to each school district and the classes themselves are elective. The guideline - teach it, but don't preach it! Classes are to be taught "in an objective and nondevotional manner with no attempt made to indoctrinate students."

Critics claim the new law will open schools and teachers up to lawsuits for crossing the "Church/State" boundary while others fear that classrooms will become pro-Christian sanctuaries. Another concern is that Georgia's law does not give enough guidance on how to teach the bible since no additional training for teachers is required.

Now my opinion...From Bloggin' Outloud

While these concerns have some merit they aren't any different than what is currently the case in our public (read government run) schools. First, people are lawsuit happy and any perception of a violation of their rights gets some folks' dander up. Second, classes are elective. If Christian students want to turn it into a sanctuary, God bless them. And third, when has there ever been enough guidance on how to teach anything effectively? I say, give it a shot.

The Bible as Literature: Time Magazine's Feature on Bible Literacy Project.

Anti-Catholic Bigotry

What crap is this?
This editorial cartoon appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer in the wake of the Supreme Court decision upholding the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.


I agree with Chuck Colson who, in today's Townhall.com column, appropriately blasted the Inquirer's cartoonist Tony Auth for his recent editorial:

The cartoon’s message was clear: The Catholics had voted, not to uphold the law, but to impose their personal religious views. It’s a graphic example of anti-Catholic bigotry.

In a letter to the editor, Donna Farrell of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia wrote:

This is a human issue, not a Catholic one. To label it Catholic in such a prejudicial fashion unfairly dismisses all those of other religions who stand together against abortion. I cannot imagine the media would make an issue of the justices' religion were it anything other than Catholic.

She's right on target.