Another one from my “back catalog.” This is a simple little song I wrote to sing at communion services.
Categories
Categories
Old Song — "Glorious"
I’m working on getting my “back catalog” onto Windows Media streaming format for a new “music” page on my website. Here’s a song I wrote a couple of years ago called “Glorious.” The production is sparse — just me and my guitar, basically — but this is one of my personal favorites of the song’s I’ve written. Enjoy!
A year or two ago, I was much more sympathetic to Intelligent Design than I am now. Part of my waning enthusiasm for ID is that, as I’ve studied the arguments, some of the “proofs” ID uses don’t really seem all that compelling. Of course, I still believe in design. More than that, I think some arguments that are classified as “design” or “ID” arguments remain very strong, particularly when they are used in the classical sense as part of a broader framework of “faith seeking understanding,” rather than as formal, rationalistic evidences of breaks in the created order.
What has really turned my stomach sour about ID, however, is the increasingly politicized tone of some of the ID leadership. Exhibit No. 1 here is Bill Dembski’s blog, Uncommon Descent. I’ve read some of Dembski’s books, and his tone in that kind of writing tends to be erudite and scholarly. On his blog, however, he and some of his guest posters come across, at least in my mind, as strident and angry. They make the political motivations for ID transparent, particularly when they go off on rants about things that are completely irrelevant to the question of design, such as global warming. Dembski’s blog, for me, damages the credibility of ID as a scientific or even generally scholarly enterprise — which is a shame.
Here is what gets my ire today. I participate actively in the American Scientific Affiliation discussion list. One of the friends I’ve made on that list, whom I’ve never met in person but hope to some day, is Ted Davis, a professor at Messiah College (a Christian liberal arts college). From what I’ve seen of Ted’s work, he is a model to me of what a Christian scholar should be like. I may not always agree with Ted (though I usually do), but I can always say that Ted presents his case in a calm, reasonable way.
For some unknown reason, Dembski decided yesterday to attack Ted on Uncommon Descent. This attack was particularly ridiculous because the comments Dembski refers to were in the context of Ted’s criticism of a strident anti-ID commentator who was trying in some absurd way to defend Richard Dawkins. This kind of thing makes it hard for me to trust what Bill Dembski says — which again, is really too bad, because alot of what he says in his more scholarly work is interesting and worthy of careful discussion.
Here is what I wrote in the comments on Dembski’s blog, which undoubtedly will get me flamed over there:
I am the “David” to which Ted Davis refers and whose earlier comments Ted “echoes” in the discussion thread from the ASA email list which Dr. Dembski has referenced. The context of that thread was a discussion of Richard Dawkins’ recent “Fresh Air” interview.
The person to whom Ted is directly responding in that discussion, Pim van Meurs (of Panda’s Thumb), was suggesting that Dawkins’ main target is ID rather than religion generally. Pim seemed to be defending Dawkins as a champion of Science. I reacted strongly to that, and others jumped into the fray, including Ted.
The suggestion that Ted’s post “is written to Pim van Meurs, as a mentor would write to his disciple” is patently absurd, bordering perhaps on defamatory. If you read through the whole thread, and indeed if you were to participate regularly on the ASA list, you would immediately see that nothing could be further from the truth. Ted never hesitates to call out over-the-top nonesense like a defense of Richard Dawkins as a reasonable chap who is just concerned about ID.
Indeed, in my many online conversations with Ted, I’ve come to appreciate deeply his somewhat moderating stance between TE and ID. It is true that Ted also doesn’t hesitate to criticize what he sees as the flaws in the “strong” ID program. But at the same time, he often defends the basic notion of design from excessive criticism by TE’s, and the historical context he is able to provide to these discussions invariably is invaluable.
Above all, Ted is a gentleman as well as a scholar. From what I’ve seen of Ted’s writing and of his leadership in the ASA, he has refused to allow the politics of ID to overwhelm careful scholarship and calm, reasoned discussion.
It is a shame that we can’t say the same for everyone involved in this discussion, particularly for those who publicly identify themselves as followers of Jesus. Personally, I used to be much more sympathetic to ID than I am now. One of the main reasons for my increased skepticism about ID is that nasty, strident, politicized tone of many ID leaders — as exemplified by this unfair attack on a fellow Christian scholar. You may think you are winning a battle here and there, but you will lose the war if you keep going down this track. The shame is that it isn’t really your war to fight, and the tools you’re using to fight it are not those of the Kingdom all of us Christian scholars are supposed to represent.
I am a law professor, a Christian scholar along with Ted and Dr. Dembski, though not possessed of anywhere near their achievements, influence or stature. We who are called to serve the Church with our teaching and scholarship, perhaps more than anyone else, ought to model patient, careful, deep and reasonable discourse. We together name Jesus as Lord and agree that all Truth is God’s Truth. Our bond in those facts should transcend this sort of petty sniping.
(And now, let’s see with what love and grace everyone here treats me for daring to defend my friend Ted Davis).
Categories
A Little Bluesy Riffage
The YouTube clip of Phil Keaggy got me inspired. Here’s a little Phil-esque bluesy riffage. Note the hand percussion and B3 organ, all of which I played myself!
Categories
Baseball!
The Yankees’ season started just a few moments ago. It was pretty cool to watch the first pitch. A-Rod already has an error, of course.
It has begun! Today I got out to the county course for nine holes. Five very good holes, where I just relaxed and focused on a smooth, fluid swing; four not so good holes, where I hit a few real clunkers, which I’ll attribute mostly to rustiness and getting a little uptight. There’s nothing like those holes where you bomb it down the middle off the tee, pop it onto the green, and finish off a couple of good putts. And the serendipity of heading out to the county course alone is fun, too. Today I was paired up with a guy who teaches at Julliard Music School and tours the country singing cabaret tunes. He’s opened in Atlantic City and Vegas for people like Don Rickles and Ray Romano, and sings at restaurants that might be fit right into a Sopranos episode. Our foursome also included a Japanese guy who spoke hardly any English and was impeccably dressed in proper golf attire. Only at a NYC metro area public course!
Categories
Phil Keaggy and His Olson
Phil Keaggy is a phenomenal guitarist. When I was a kid, seeing him in concert inspired me to want to be a Christian rock star. That never quite happened, but hey, I do get to play in front of people sometimes on Sundays. It is very hard for me not to covet the Olson guitar Phil is playing here. (BTW, in case you haven’t already realized this, a friend send me a bunch of YouTube links, and I finally figured out how to embed them into the blog!).
Categories
Mom My Ride
A hilarious spoof using “Pimp My Ride” to bust us suburban minivan drivers:
Categories
How Not to Be Seen
This is a classic mash-up of Monty Python and Halo:
Today’s e-mail update from the Family Research Council urges Christians to sign a petition against a proposal to amend the federal hate crimes laws to include hate crimes against homosexuals. The FRC has set up a website reflecting a major initiative to oppose what it is calling “thought crimes” laws. The FRC suggests that Christian pastors could be imprisioned under this law for preaching sermons about traditional sexual morality.
I understand some of the FRC’s concerns here, but I have to say that this initiative deeply disturbs me. Before I mention what disturbs me, here are the points with which I agree. There are places in the world, some of them purportedly liberal democracies, in which speech, by itself, can be considered a hate crime. I agree with FRC and other Christian organizations that laws of that sort are abominable and a threat to religious liberty. Religions by definition “discriminate” in the sense that all religions in some way divide the ethical and moral from the unethical and immoral. Christianity is about grace and love, but we affirm that we need grace and love because we are all sinners. Christians don’t, and can’t, hesitate to identify sin for what it is, including in the area of sexual morality (though I would say that there is no reason to single out homosexual practice in this regard in contrast to other issues of sexual morality, and that we could do much better in acting pastorally and missionally towards people who are homosexual). There is no question about the fact that we need to remain vigilant about preserving freedom of religious speech and association.
Having said that, this concern has nothing whatsoever to do with the hate crime law currently being targed by the FRC and other religious right groups. The bill under consideration concerns violent crime. The amendment would increase the penalities for violent crimes motivated by animus against homosexuals. Here is what is covered by this bill: the willfull causing of “bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person,” including “kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.”
Perhaps I missed it, but I didn’t see any reference there to preaching a sermon. This bill has nothing whatsover to do with preaching or speaking about traditional morality. There is no realistic likelihood that such protected first amendment activity would ever be criminalized in the United States, and even if it were, the “activist judges” would surely overturn such plainly unconstitutional legislation.
In addition, I’m very disturbed by the effort to paint this legislation as a “thought control” bill. The “thought control” meme has been picked up by various conservative organizations (see, e.g., Concerned Women for America’s webpage on the issue). I think this is extremely misleading. The truth is that it is not at all unusual or for the law to impose different penalties depending on a person’s state of mind. In fact, state of mind is an element of many crimes. Murder, for example, as every first-year law student learns, traditionally is defined as “the intentional killing a human being with malice aforethought.” “Intent” and “malice aforethought” are states of mind. This doesn’t make the prohibition of murder some kind of black helicopter “thought control” law.
I could give hundreds of other examples in which state of mind is relevant either to the elements of a crime or civil claim or to the penalty or damages to be imposed. Indeed, it’s fair to say that both the criminal and civil law routinely address a party’s mental state. To suggest that hate crimes legislation is unique in this regard is false.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I think the religious right’s crusade against hate crimes laws, from a missional perspective, is misguided and selfish. What does this communicate to a homosexual person about the love of Jesus? Will this do anything to move any person involved in homosexual behavior to turn towards Jesus and the community of faith, where hope and healing could be found? Is the Christian community speaking the truth in love (Eph. 4:15) here, or are we just demanding our “rights?” I think the FRC might be right in identifying the homosexual activist movement in Western countries as a key area in which the Church will face a post-Christian culture in coming decades. The question is, do we confront that culture with a sort of jihad, or do we take up the way of the cross and face it with sacrificial love?
Appendix: here is the full text of the bill currently being considered by Congress. I think it is abundantly clear that this has nothing to do with so-called “thought crimes” and everything to do with the kind of violence that all followers of Jesus should deplore, whether against homosexuals or anyone else:
HR 254 IH
110th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 254
To enhance Federal enforcement of hate crimes, and for other purposes.IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 5, 2007
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary——————————————————————————–
A BILL
To enhance Federal enforcement of hate crimes, and for other purposes.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `David Ray Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007′ or `David’s Law’.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that–
(1) the incidence of violence motivated by the actual or perceived race, color, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender, or disability of the victim poses a serious national problem;
(2) such violence disrupts the tranquility and safety of communities and is deeply divisive;
(3) existing Federal law is inadequate to address this problem;
(4) such violence affects interstate commerce in many ways, including–
(A) by impeding the movement of members of targeted groups and forcing such members to move across State lines to escape the incidence or risk of such violence; and
(B) by preventing members of targeted groups from purchasing goods and services, obtaining or sustaining employment or participating in other commercial activity;
(5) perpetrators cross State lines to commit such violence;
(6) instrumentalities of interstate commerce are used to facilitate the commission of such violence;
(7) such violence is committed using articles that have traveled in interstate commerce;
(8) violence motivated by bias that is a relic of slavery can constitute badges and incidents of slavery;
(9) although many local jurisdictions have attempted to respond to the challenges posed by such violence, the problem is sufficiently serious, widespread, and interstate in scope to warrant Federal intervention to assist such jurisdictions; and
(10) many States have no laws addressing violence based on the actual or perceived race, color, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender, or disability, of the victim, while other States have laws that provide only limited protection.
SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF HATE CRIME.
In this Act, the term `hate crime’ has the same meaning as in section 280003(a) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (28 U.S.C. 994 note).
SEC. 4. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN ACTS OF VIOLENCE.
Section 245 of title 18, United States Code, is amended–
(1) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections (d) and (e), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
`(c)(1) Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person–
`(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, or fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
`(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or fined in accordance with this title, or both if–
`(i) death results from the acts committed in violation of this paragraph; or
`(ii) the acts committed in violation of this paragraph include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.
`(2)(A) Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, gender, sexual orientation, or disability of any person–
`(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, or fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
`(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or fined in accordance with this title, or both, if–
`(I) death results from the acts committed in violation of this paragraph; or
`(II) the acts committed in violation of this paragraph include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.
`(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A), the circumstances described in this subparagraph are that–
`(i) in connection with the offense, the defendant or the victim travels in interstate or foreign commerce, uses a facility or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce, or engages in any activity affecting interstate or foreign commerce; or
`(ii) the offense is in or affects interstate or foreign commerce.’.
SEC. 5. DUTIES OF FEDERAL SENTENCING COMMISSION.
(a) Amendment of Federal Sentencing Guidelines- Pursuant to its authority under section 994 of title 28, United States Code, the United States Sentencing Commission shall study the issue of adult recruitment of juveniles to commit hate crimes and shall, if appropriate, amend the Federal sentencing guidelines to provide sentencing enhancements (in addition to the sentencing enhancement provided for the use of a minor during the commission of an offense) for adult defendants who recruit juveniles to assist in the commission of hate crimes.
(b) Consistency With Other Guidelines- In carrying out this section, the United States Sentencing Commission shall–
(1) ensure that there is reasonable consistency with other Federal sentencing guidelines; and
(2) avoid duplicative punishments for substantially the same offense.
SEC. 6. GRANT PROGRAM.
(a) Authority To Make Grants- The Administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention of the Department of Justice shall make grants, in accordance with such regulations as the Attorney General may prescribe, to State and local programs designed to combat hate crimes committed by juveniles.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations- There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this section.
SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION FOR ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL TO ASSIST STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Justice, including the Community Relations Service, for fiscal years 2007, 2008, and 2009 such sums as are necessary to increase the number of personnel to prevent and respond to alleged violations of section 245 of title 18, United States Code (as amended by this Act).