Are We Charlie, Really?

Follow up to previous post: 

Listening to Mark Steyn literally fuming at those who are expressing "solidarity" with the murdered Charlie Hebdo journalists. These same people are the ones who are appeasing the radical Islamists. 

Here's Steyn on The Kelly File, saying much the same thing. 

One observation: why does Megyn Kelly refer to Mohammed as "the prophet" Mohammed? Would she refer to Jesus as "Lord and Savior" in an interview? 

The Mighty Pen?

Posting here two editorial cartoons following yesterday's despicable massacre in Paris. Putting on a brave face. 

The question is, Will there be anyone left with the courage to continue the "mission" of those who died? It's not entirely clear that western media and political leaders won't continue to kowtow to radical Islam. One day after the attack, President Obama's press secretary announced that Obama will be placing a priority on fighting Islamaphobia. Even today, some news outlets either won't print or are obscuring the offending cartoons from Charlie Hebdo (even while will permitting offensive images of Jesus Christ). 

So while yes, in the immediate aftermath of this assault on freedom of the press, millions of people are raising their pens in an expression of solidarity with the journalists and cartoonists who died in the massacre (Je suis Charlie), others are chiding them, among them this horrible man named Bill Donahue from the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, who wrote that it's " too bad [Stephane Charbonnier] didn't 'understand the role he played in his tragic death."

So yes, raise your pens, raise your signs. But after that, will we write? draw? publish? We can only hope. 

Rob Tornoe 

Lucille Clerc

No Go Zones Coming to a City Near You?

What freaks me out is the idea of “no go areas” not just in France, but in other parts of Europe, as well, and apparently even in parts of the United States (Dearborn, Michigan). 

Imagine living in a no go zone and the authorities won’t come to your aid if you call for help. It’s a nightmare.

"Muslims Segregated from French Society in Growing Islamist Mini-States" (Washington Times, January 8, 2015). 

Mini Book Review: Miracles, by Eric Metaxas

Bought and read this book on impulse, after hearing a few interviews and thinking it might be nice to read and maybe share with family members during the Christmas holidays. 

Finished it but was disappointed. It was good in theory but poor in execution. Not well written. I get the feeling (as I always do, reading Christian books) that the project was rushed. Probably aiming for that Christmas shopping dollar. Which doesn't speak well (in my view) of the religious publishing industry. But that's another subject.

The frustrating thing for me is that, as a long-time Christian (36 years this month), I actually believe the stories in this book. I have no reason to doubt the author's credibility, though he doesn't give me much reason to trust him. He explains that he included only stories about people he personally knows so he can vouch for them, as if that's all that's necessary to convince the reader to believe them. In reality, it doesn't make it easier for the reader, since we have to transcend two layers of trust: trusting the veracity of those who experienced the miracles, and trusting the author, who vouches for them. So from the very beginning there's this kind of circular reasoning going on: Metaxas assures us we can trust the stories because he can personally vouch for them, but the only reason we should trust him is because he says we should trust him.  

He divides the book into two sections: The Question of Miracles (an attempt to explain what's going on theologically) and The Miracle Stories. Again, good in concept but poor in execution. As a Christian, I expected more from Part I. I was frustrated that there were no end-notes. If Part One was supposed to be more academic (which I personally wish it had been), I found it sorely lacking. The author's style of asking questions rather than presenting information got a bit annoying. And though he attempts to address the question of why and why not (i.e., why does God allow a miracle in one situation but not another?), in the end, I'm not sure skeptical readers will be satisfied with his explanation. There's this nagging unease about the randomness of it all. One man sits in a beautiful cathedral and sees an angel. I sit in church and see walls and silk plants. One man is completely healed (not cured, healed) of AIDS. I know a man, a much-loved youth pastor of a local church, who died last month after a two-year battle with brain cancer. Members of this man's congregation, not to mention friends and family, prayed for healing, prayed for a miracle. But he died anyway. In fact, he suffered terribly before finally succumbing at age 43. It's not my place to question it. But I can see why people would.

Part Two is obviously the heart and soul of the book, and as such, probably should have been presented first rather than second. I loved the stories and have no doubt in my mind that they are true (I have my own stories--why should I doubt theirs?). But . . . the writing! I'm talking mostly about style, here, but there were also typos and errors. For heaven's sake, at the very least, hire a new editor. 

A minor quibble: In the Table of Contents, I wish the stories had been itemized. The author chose to categorize the stories ("Conversion Miracles," "Healing Miracles," and so on), which is a good idea, but I would have liked the stories to be listed beneath each category so I could go back and refer to them if I wanted. Like now, for instance. I want to discuss one or two stories that particularly touched me, but it would take me too long to locate them.  Oh well. 

Would I recommend this book? Yes and no. 

Yes! I am amazed by the stories. 

No! I am annoyed by the writing style, editing, and execution of an otherwise important book. This topic deserves better.