This email was sent to [[EMAIL_ADDRESS]]. If you feel you have received this in error or you do not wish to receive future articles from us, please reply with the word REMOVE in the subject line.

Dear Concerned Citizen,
November 3, 2004
 
tothesource: Congratulations on launching Faith Under Fire! How did you come up with the name for your show?

Lee Strobel: The name for the show came from Theresa Berger, wife of Jim Berger, president of Rocket Pictures and my partner in producing the program. We liked the name because it captures the essence of what we're trying to do -- address provocative spiritual issues in a weekly debate-style format.

Our approach is to take significant apologetics topics -- such as whether Jesus rose from the dead, whether science points toward or away from God, and whether all roads lead to heaven -- and important social issues -- including gay marriage, embryonic stem cell research, and the morality of the Iraqi war -- and let people debate them from different faith perspectives.

So we have Christians, atheists, Muslims, New Agers, and others on the show.
I believe that this program can generate meaningful conversations among viewers, which is why we also provide free discussion questions at leestrobel.net.

t the Christian worldview, when given a chance to be defined and defended in the marketplace of ideas, will emerge as the most cogent and persuasive. However, I have to leave that conclusion up to the viewers.

tts: Do you agree with the premise of tothesource, that if people of faith do not deal with key cultural issues the culture will become increasingly secular?

LS: Yes, I do. Years ago, Christians largely abandoned the entertainment industry because they believed it was ungodly, and the result has been not only the increased secularization of the media, but also a pervasive anti-Christian bias.

Our show hopes to engage the most important social and cultural issues of our day, allowing people of faith to strongly express their opinions. We want the most articulate Christians, atheists, Muslims, and so forth, to offer up their best arguments so that viewers can make up their own minds.

The Christian perspective of social and cultural issues has been sorely lacking in the mainstream media. We're grateful that PAX-TV has agreed to air our program -- and, in fact, has now requested an additional thirteen programs because the initial response to the show has been so overwhelmingly positive.

tts: Catholic philosopher Alisdair MacIntyre laments the shift from rational public discourse to emotivism. Does Faith Under Fire seek to correct this trend?

LS: I have to say that we're quite mindful of the limitations of television and the impact that one show can have. We can't hope to solve any major issues in a twenty-minute debate. But we can let informed and passionate experts offer their reasoned arguments.

We hope to get past mere emotions and beliefs and delve instead into WHY our guests believe what they believe. My hope is that this will expose the general public to rational reasons why Christians take the positions they do and to judge for themselves whether these reasons withstand counter-arguments from people of different beliefs.

We also hope people will be spurred to discuss these issues with their friends, family members, neighbors, and colleagues. That's why we not only provide discussion questions to facilitate these conversations, but we also have an arrangement with Barnes and Noble so that viewers can get books that will help them dig deeper into these topics.

So far, we're getting about 500 emails per week from viewers, which tells me that the show is really causing people to think deeply about the important issues that we're covering. I think that's a good thing.

tts: Thank you so much Lee. We wish you great success with Faith Under Fire. This week's episode includes Animal Civil Rights, The Kabbalah Craze, Hell: Fact or Fiction?, and Hugh Hefner on the Hot Seat. We hope our readers will tune in.

Response to: You Were a "Dot" Once Too

Dear Dr. Cameron:

Re:

"While the debate over embryonic stem cell research rages on, many advocates of ESCR claim that most of the embryos currently in storage will be flushed down a drain. Last week Senator Harkin distorted the facts in his strident plea on the Senate floor to make embryos widely available for research.

Now, we already have over 400,000 of these little dots that you can barely see frozen. They are left over from in vitro fertilization. Guess what happens folks; these little dots are in test tubes frozen with liquid nitrogen. When the donors don't want them any longer because they have had their children, or they don't want to have children any longer, or they call up and say, we don't want those saved any longer and guess what? The test tube is cleaned out and washed down the sink. It's either throw these valuable embryos away, or use them for stem cell research.

Harkin didn't do his homework. A recent report by the Rand Corporation detailing the status of the known 400,000 frozen embryos found that the vast majority are designated for future attempts for pregnancy. Only 2.8% (11,000) frozen embryos have been designated for research."

This reasoning is circular.  Of course the 400,000 frozen embryos are slated for something other than disposal, otherwise they wouldn't be frozen to begin with!  You don't articulate whether the "vast majority... designated for future attempts for pregnancy" are slated for pregnancies for the donor patients of the fertility clinics.  If that is, in fact, the case, how does this portion of the Rand Report make Senator Harkin's point any less persuasive?

How many frozen embryos are typically created for a single fertility clinic pregnancy?   Whether you consider non-donor implantation a donation or adoption 1, do the numbers show that any more than a token number would be "saved?"  If not, how can you escape the need to take on the fertility clinics in order to defend the fertilized egg as the bright line definition of a human life?

1.   I believe you exaggerate the importance of using the 'tag' words to frame an argument.  I have no more difficulty with the adoption of a still ununited sperm and and egg than with the adoption of  the fertilized egg;  it's just a shorthand way of signaling your conclusions before disclosing your reasoning.  It only impresses those who already agree with you.   For instance, although I believe that the WWII evacuation of Japanese-Americans was profoundly unjust and utterly unwarranted by any military necessity, I never agreed with using the term "concentration camps" instead of "internment camps."   Even though former term was technically correct in terms of its etomological origins in the late nineteenth century, the WWII experience gave the expression added a conotation of equivalency to "death camps."   Why use  "concentration camp,"  and give the appearance of unwarranted exaggeration when evacuation to "internment camps" or "relocation camps" (in vogue now among some NeoCons rehabilitating the internment) can easily be supported by the plain facts? - G.W.

Nigel M. de S. Cameron responds: It's plain that the terminology we use has an effect on our arguments. That is why, for example, back in the 80s the people who wanted to experiment on embryos decided to come up with a new word that would help them: the "pre-embryo." Then they too could say they were against embryo research. It is why the terminology of the cloning question has been so fiercely debated. Every bill before congress claims to "ban" cloning, while S. 303 which Harkin and Feinstein have backed (and Kerry has signed on to) defines cloning as the implantation of the cloned embryo, and thereby protects experiments on what it calls (using a made-up term that has no existence outside the bill) an "unfertilised blastocyst."

Of course, we are not obliged to use our own prejudicial terminology, and I have no problem in calling internment camps by that name, as internment sounds quite bad enough - and to compare them with the Nazi concentration camps would be shameful. On the other hand, we do not call them resorts.

The biggest question of the 21st century will be the capacity of democracy to contain biotechnology and such related technologies as nano and cybernetics. And central to democracy's hopes will always be the use of honest language. The bad guys know this very well, and anyone who followed the outrageous attempts of pro-Prop 71 advocates to use the courts to prevent its opponents calling cloning by its names should know it too.

Send your letter to the editor to feedback@tothesource.org.
Click for a Printer Friendly Version
 
• Faith Under Fire Website
 
 
We live complex lives. We strive to sort out priorities that sometimes conflict or seem incompatible. A moral framework is needed to help us understand the reality around us. Our Judeo-Christian heritage provides a framework to help us comprehend the choices we make and the conflicts that arise over them. It is not only the main source of our spiritual values, but also many of the secular values we depend on.

tothesource is a forum for integrating thinking and action within a moral framework that takes into account our contemporary situation. We will report the insights of cultural experts to the specific issues we face believing these sources will embolden people to greater faith and action.
We invite you to subscribe to our free email service
that features informed opinion on current cultural issues.
tothesource, P.O. Box 1292, Thousand Oaks, CA 91358
Phone: (805) 241-3138 | Fax: (805) 241-3158 | info@tothesource.org

This email was sent to [[EMAIL_ADDRESS]]. If you feel you have received this in error or you do not wish to receive future articles from us, please reply with the word REMOVE in the subject line.