14. July 2008 by Seth.

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).

Posted in Art, Worldviews | Print | No Comments »

6. May 2008 by Seth.

Morality—that robust word which stirs men’s hearts with passion for goodness and virtue, that code which sharply distinguishes between Adolf Hitler and Mother Teresa—has died in America, or so certain Americans would lead one to believe.

Moral relativism has for some time been tightening its grip upon our culture with its declarations of “That’s only true for you” and “Don’t force your morality upon me.”  Morality, therefore, in the wake of such notions was redefined as the beliefs of the individual rather than an objective code which exists regardless of man’s choice whether or not to follow it.

Often, however, when pressed to support their beliefs, most relativists will admit by their actions that they do not hold to such a worldview.  A man may tell you that you are free to form your own beliefs, but steal his wallet and watch his response carefully.

But, there are some who seem to break even this mold.

Last Sunday, I stepped into a conversation on morality with a young woman awaiting entrance into a political rally.  She began with the cliché claims of “Who are you to tell me what to do?” and “That’s just your belief.”

I continued the debate game by laying down my card of, “What if I believed it was okay for me to rape you?  Would that be wrong?”

Her response: “That’s up to you.”

Me: “You don’t think it’s wrong for me to rape you?”

Girl: “It’s your choice.”

Me: “Just so I understand this, let me rephrase it: if I rape you, you don’t think that’s wrong?”

Girl: “I can’t tell you it’s wrong.”

At this point, the conversation lost all meaning.  There was no common ground between us, no shared frame of reference with which we could have a meaningful sharing of ideas.  This young woman’s notion of the impossibility of absolutes was so fierce that even a “hot button” topic like rape would not stop her from clinging religiously to moral relativism.

While I do think that she would have revealed the moral code inside of her had I tried to steal her purse, I was shocked by her unwavering verbal support for relativism.

And, the theory I have formed is that youth like this young woman have been raised in a culture of consistent messages of relativism.  Whereas the middle aged men and women who deny moral absolutes grew up in an era which had not yet forgotten the evil made possible by the fallen nature of man seen in the likes of Hitler, Stalin—and therefore will see the futility of holding to their theory of relativism when faced with an issue such as rape—the children of today have long since been removed from any such thought of good and evil. 

In a stale culture without any heroes or villains, it is easy for one to believe the message that there is no right or wrong proclaimed from the theater screens and school classrooms.

Now, we know there are indeed heroes and villains scattered about the world today, but this can easily be lost on the children of this era who sometimes see no farther than their computer screens or hear nothing due to the constant barrage of tunes pumped into their minds by ipods.

Can we reach a generation which not only pays tentative lip-service to relativism but holds tightly to it even when pressed with the mention of a despicable act such as rape?

What other theories exist for why this generation’s love of relativism has become such a strong religious fervor?

Posted in Relativism, Worldviews | Print | No Comments »

15. April 2008 by Seth.

Recently, I was reading the results of one of those “What Lord of the Rings Character Are You?” quizzes on a friend’s Facebook profile page (you know who you are), and it struck me as rather odd. 

You are: Frodo Baggins.  You’re the main character, the hero, the savior of the world. You’re also kind of short. But that’s the thing - you’ve never let your shortcoming get in the way of success. Be proud - one day the world will be yours.

Anyone who’s read The Lord of the Rings series would probably take to task more than one detail in this rather myopic bio of Frodo Baggins, the hobbit who traverses Middle Earth with the One Ring around his neck determined to see it destroyed in the fires of Mount Doom.

It was the last sentence, though, which I found to be most curious—curious and yet not surprising in Twenty-First Century America.

“Be proud - one day the world will be yours.”

It is probable that whoever wrote this description has never read Tolkien’s masterpiece.  Perhaps he’s only seen the movies once or twice—because, anyone who has an understanding of the purpose of Frodo’s mission must understand that not only is “to rule the world” not part of the game plan, but rather it is indeed a page out of the enemy’s playbook.

Indeed, why does Sauron in the great epic long so much to have the ring once again in his control?  Answer: to rule the world.

Why are men so easily corrupted by the seduction of the ring?  Answer: it promises untold power and dominion over Middle Earth.

If Frodo’s end goal had been that of pride and to own the world, he would merely have had to take the ring for himself and enjoy his short ride as lord of the ring—and lord of Middle Earth.

To confuse his efforts with a lust for pride and world domination is to rewrite the entire story.

The arrogance and thirst for power seen in this short bio should not be surprising, however.  Our individualist society seems to care almost exclusively for themselves.  We turn our backs upon those in need and instead want only to  “look out for numero uno.”

We are also a society of “positive thinking.”  Not only do we seek first our own satisfaction, but we seem to hold the notion that simply thinking about the end goal will somehow get us there.  “Be proud,” and then by some magic device suddenly your dream will come true—”the world will be yours.”

Frodo’s journey was not only one of self-sacrifice.  It was also a long, arduous journey, full of both moments of pride and mishaps of discouragement.  Equating this story with selfish ambition and “positive thinking” misses the point entirely.

Posted in Worldviews, General | Print | No Comments »