It’s not every day that a Baylor University professor‘s conversion from an Evangelical Protestant to Roman Catholicism (reversing a prior conversion the other way) generates a story in the weekend Washington Post. Here is Professor Francis J. Beckwith’s announcement of his conversion, the announcement of his resignation from the Evangelical Theological Society, and an interview of Beckwith regarding his decision. James Grant provides this reaction from an evangelical standpoint to Professor Beckwith’s decision, while Father Alvin Kimel provides a Roman Catholic perspective of the decision.

PBS’ excellent American Experience series provides a two-hour documentary tonight appropriately entitled “Alexander Hamilton” (PBS, Monday 8-10 p.m. CDT, but check your local listings), which will focus on the remarkable life of arguably America’s most controversial Founding Father. One of my favorite books of the past several years is Ron Chernow’s excellent biography of Hamilton, so I am looking forward with great interest to the American Experience‘s treatment of the man who is most responsible among the Founding Fathers for the success of the U.S. market system.
Hamilton’s numerous political opponents used to call him “the bastard son of a Scottish peddler,” but the truth is that his parents were not legally married, he grew up dreadfully poor in the West Indies, and he was orphaned at an early age. Although the prideful Hamilton was ashamed of his troubled start in life, it fueled a fierce ambition that propelled him as a teenager to write newspaper articles that were so impressive that a group of men from St. Croix passed around the hat to pay his way to New England so he could attend college. At the age of 17, Hamilton literally stepped off the boat in Boston into the beginning of the American Revolution and, within three years, had risen through the ranks to become General Washington’s chief of staff and most trusted aide.
That the young Hamilton in just a few years went from writing newspaper articles about hurricanes in the West Indies to becoming one of the key leaders of the American Revolution is merely one of numerous remarkable aspects of his compelling life. So, pull up a chair tonight and enjoy the fascinating story about the man who has much to do with establishing the foundation for the enormous wealth creation that has taken place in American society over the past 200 years.

Don’t miss this Christianity Today debate between theologian Douglas Wilson and atheist author Christopher Hitchens on the question — “Is Christianity good for the world?” Regardless of which position you favor, you have to admire Wilson’s the following response to Hitchens’ argument that Christians have been guilty of bad acts:

[Y]ou say that if “Christianity is to claim credit for the work of outstanding Christians or for the labors of famous charities, then it must in all honesty accept responsibility for the opposite.” In short, if we point to our saints, you are going to demand that we point also to our charlatans, persecutors, shysters, slave-traders, inquisitors, hucksters, televangelists, and so on.
Now allow me the privilege of pointing out the structure of your argument here. If a professor takes credit for the student who mastered the material, aced his finals, and went on to a career that was a benefit to himself and the university he graduated from, the professor must (fairness dictates) be upbraided for the dope-smoking slacker that he kicked out of class in the second week. They were both formally enrolled, is that not correct? They were both students, were they not?
What you are doing is saying that Christianity must be judged not only on the basis of those who believe the gospel in truth and live accordingly but also on the basis of those baptized Christians who cannot listen to the Sermon on the Mount without a horse laugh and a life to match. You are saying that those who excel in the course and those who flunk out of it are all the same. This seems to me to be a curious way of proceeding.

This installment in the debate is the first of several installments in the debate that will occur over the next month, so stay tuned.
Update: Part two of the debate is here.
Update: Part three of the debate is here.
Update: Part four of the debate is here.

The New York Times has published this nifty graphic display that provides an excellent overview and explanation of the specific locations of the shootings at Virginia Tech last week. Definitely worth checking out.

Take a sick baby and an anxious mother;
Put them in a Ronald McDonald House waiting room in the Texas Medical Center with other patients and their relatives;
Add in that the mother decides to breastfeed the child in the waiting room;
Toss in a somewhat intolerant observor of the breastfeeding who registers a complaint about it, and
Presto!
All hell breaks loose.

Following on this post from yesterday on the murderous rampage at Virginia Tech on Monday, Gary Lavergne, the director of admissions research at the University of Texas at Austin and one of the foremost experts on Charles Whitman’s 1966 sniper attack from the UT Tower, provides this insightful Chronicle of Higher Education op-ed on the legacy of Whitman in relation to this week’s attack:

In Sniper in the Tower I concluded, and later the FBI’s premier profiler, John Douglas, in his book Anatomy of Motive would agree, that “[Whitman’s] actions speak for themselves.” Any cause-and-effect theory, whether organic (brain tumor), chemical (amphetamine psychosis), or psychological (military training or child abuse), embracing the idea that Charles Whitman’s judgment or free will was impaired, is not consistent with what he did. He carefully planned every move and detail, and he succeeded in doing what he set out to do — murdering people and getting himself killed in spectacular fashion. The Whitman case taught me that sometimes our zeal to champion causes important to us or to explain the unexplainable and be “enlightened” blinds us to the obvious.
Charles Whitman was a murderer; he killed innocent people. We should not forget that. In Virginia we appear to have a Whitman-like character. It is vitally important for all to remember that there is only one person responsible for what happened in Blacksburg, and that is the man who pulled the trigger. But in Virginia the diversions have already begun. As I write this, less than a half-day since the senseless killing of nearly three dozen innocent people, Web headlines on CNN, Fox, and MSNBC read: “Did Virginia Tech’s Response Cost Lives?” “Parents Demand Firing of Virginia Tech President, Police Chief Over Handling,” “Students Wonder About Police Response.” Ironically, those headlines are juxtaposed with pictures of law-enforcement officers administering medical treatment and hauling wounded students to safety. Next to those pictures are videos of Virginia Tech’s president and chief of police, in pain and in the midst of a nightmare, bombarded with sensational questions from irresponsible reporters. [. . .]
Before we identify and learn the lessons of Blacksburg, we must begin with the obvious: More than four dozen innocent people were gunned down by a murderer who is completely responsible for what happened. No one died for lack of text messages or an alarm system. They died of gunshot wounds. While we painfully learn our lessons, we must not treat each other as if we are responsible for the deaths that occurred. We must come together and be respectful and kind. This is not a time for us to torture ourselves or to seek comfort by finding someone to blame. Maybe as a result of the tragedy we will figure out how to more effectively use e-mail and text messages as emergency tools for warning large populations. We may come up with a plan that successfully clears a large area, with a population density of a midsize city, in less than two hours. Maybe universities will find a way to install surveillance cameras and convince students and faculty members that they are being monitored for their own safety and not for gathering domestic intelligence. All of those steps might be helpful in avoiding and reducing the carnage of any future incidents. But as long as we value living in a free society, we will be vulnerable to those who do harm — because they want to and know how to do it.

Read the entire piece. Plus, check out Larry Ribstein’s observations on the effect that over-regulation may had on the tragedy.