Archive for July 2008

Coldplay’s Confusion Meets Paul’s Proclamation

14. July 2008 by Seth.

coldplay

Today on their website, to celebrate the launch of their new tour, the popular British musical group Coldplay offered a free download of a track: “Death Will Never Conquer.” 

This track is not included on their latest album—Viva la Vida or Death and All His Friends—but it does fit in with the record’s treatment of the themes of life and death, war and peace.  The lyrics, as best as I could transcribe them, are below:

If sweet death should ever conquer me,
let me know, boys, let me know.
If you hear him coming won’t you let me flee;
let me go, boys, let me go.

One day death is gonna conquer me;
I’ll be down where the waters flow.
I hope sweet Heaven is a place for me.
Let me know, boys, let me know.

If sweet death should ever conquer me,
take me down to some place below.
If you hear him coming won’t you set me free.
Let me go, boys, let me go.

If you hear him comin’ won’t you say for me
that i just don’t want to go.

The melody of this track plays like a light Sunday morning hymn, with an upbeat piano carrying lead singer Chris Martin’s vocals.  The lyrics, however, present a view of death which seems to be both cavalier and tepidly hopeful.

The title of the track seems confident that death will not conquer; yet the lyrics range from if death should conquer to the declaration that one day death will indeed conquer.  The upbeat vocals and melody either underscore this confusion with irony or simply present an attitude of “Who cares?”

According to SongFacts.com, Coldplay bassist Guy Berryman made the following commentary this month to Q Magazine concerning the new album: ”There’s this slightly anti-authoritarian viewpoint that’s crept into some of the lyrics and it’s some of the payoff between being surrounded by governments on one side, but also we’re human beings with emotions and we’re all going to die and the stupidity of what we have to put up with every day.” (http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=11520; emphasis added by me).

If this quote were to hint toward Berryman’s worldview, it would be one of “Enjoy the light while you may, for soon we all shall die.”

An attempt to marry this with the lyrics of “Death Will Never Conquer” creates an anthem which longs to be hopeful—with its plea from the narrator to his friends to help him overcome death—but which also in the end cannot avoid defeatism with its resignation to the claim that all humans will die.

Mere humans cannot conquer death, and in this the Coldplay track rings true.  However, the theme of hope running through the song (”I hope sweet Heaven is a place for me”) is at best tepid (and at worst a mockery). 

Tepid hope, however, in the end will also die.  A hope placed in oneself, in a government, or in humanity in general simply cannot overcome the existential problem this song lays out, namely that all men will die.

And yet Paul boldly proclaims in I Corinthians 15: “Where, O death, is your victory?  Where, O death, is your sting?” (vs 55)

From where does Paul gain the ability to make this proclamation?  As he himself notes, the sting of death is sin (15:56)—and, for long years of human history it appeared that because of our sin death would be the victor.  But, Paul reveals the reason for his declaration as he writes, “But thanks be to God!  He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ” (15:57) and all of this he hangs on Christ’s resurrection, for which he provides evidence earlier in the same chapter.

Coldplay is right in directing us toward the inescapable reality that death will claim our fallen bodies.  But, they fail to direct us toward the One who has conquered death.

It seems fitting that Coldplay would use imagery from the French Revolution and even wear clothing which hints of that era in France while promoting their new album, sound and message.  The French Revolution was a longing for freedom, but in its de-Christianization of the country the revolution created chaos without the proper system to contain that freedom.  Nevertheless, it was a movement which ran with the blood of men who wanted to throw off the tyrant that the monarch had become.

Similarly, men everywhere want to throw off the tyrant that death is.  But, without the proper worldview, all they can do is have some ethereal hope which in the end will fail and lead to chaos.

Posted in Art, Worldviews | Print | No Comments »

Responses to “A New Pro-Abortion Argument”

7. July 2008 by Seth.

There are many responses we could give to the “acquired rights” argument in favor of legalized abortion mentioned in the previous post.

For example, if the right to life were a right which is to be acquired, there must be some moment of grandeur when this great honor is bestowed upon the individual.  While it is true that one cannot legally drive until one has passed the test, there is indeed a moment at the BMV when one is handed the long-desired driver’s license.

Similarly, when a teenager turns 18, she may apply for voting privileges and then—and only then—will she receive the voting card in the mail declaring her entry into the society of the electorate.

This could be extrapolated to the consumption of alcohol, to the portion of our society bearing the title of Bachelor of Arts, to the entrance of one into an elite club.  Yes, there is a period of learning and testing followed by admittance into the club.

However, there is a fundamental difference between these events and that of personhood.  The former is an issue of qualification and of privileges being added to one’s nature.  The second is a question of one’s very essence.  For example, children are born all across the world.  They are all human beings.  But, only a portion of them hold the title of Americans.  There are qualifications which must be met for them to hold this privilege.  Yet, regardless of their nationality, all babies are by definition human beings.

There cannot be a magical moment when one is given the title of personhood because that would mean one would actually change one’s own character.  Yes, a boy will become a man as he grows and have new responsibilities and privileges due to this.  But, does that mean in his boyhood he was not a male?  To suggest such would be nonsense.  He is now a more mature male, but the definition of his nature has not changed.

We may have a range of persons who are more and less mature in this world.  But we do not have a range of persons and non-persons in the human race.

A man cannot change his own essence.

Furthermore, we can know objectively whether or not a person may drive.  Thus, we must also be able to know objectively whether or not a person has the right to life.  Can the “acquired rights” group provide evidence of an objective moment at which one is granted the right of personhood?

No, they cannot.  This would mean there would actually be humans walking around our globe who are not persons, who have not yet been granted this privilege.  Have you ever met a human being who is not a person?  What is that like?  How does the individual behave?

Every human being—from the smallest zygote to the most elderly man—is by his nature a person.

Some argue that this is a question of gained respect.  The fetus has not gained the respect of her common man in the same way a Senator has.  Thus, we cannot be expected to honor the plea to life of the fetus, whereas we are obligated to do so for the Senator.

Imagine a society built upon this system.  Personhood and the right to life would exist on a sliding scale.  You may be a person and have the right to live, but there will always be someone who has garnered more respect and therefore has more of a right to life than you.  Thus, there is always someone who would be justified in killing you by virtue of the fact that he has more of a right to life than you.  If he were in need of a heart transplant and you were the only one with a viable organ, he would not only be justified in killing you to take your heart for himself, he would be doing the morally upright thing—by honoring the right to life of which he has more than you.

If personhood and the right to life were to exist on a sliding scale, this would create a society of higher and lower classes of persons, the former feeding upon the lower.

If, however, personhood were something one either has or does not have, then there must be some objective way to determine whether or not one has it.  If one argues that this is an “acquired right” then he must also provide objective evidence of the great moment when one receives this right.  However, all efforts to do so will end in vain because personhood is not an added privilege, it is the definition of what a human being is.

The argument that the right to life is an “acquired right” may sound like a new argument.  However, it is indeed simply a different facet of the old debate to determine the personhood of the preborn child.

There is indeed an objective way to determine whether or not an individual is a person.  And, the test is quite simple.  If the individual is human—regardless of size, level of development, environment or degree of dependency—the individual is a person.

And, that person has the right to life.

Posted in Social, Abortion | Print | 1 Comment »

|