Hindu militants who burn down churches and mosques, Muslims who kill Hindus and Christians in the name of Allah, Evangelicals asking "Are you saved?" to bus passengers &mdash all pretty much the same thing. Or so Algore tells us.
Gore’s mouth tightened. A Southern Baptist, he, too, had declared himself born again, but he clearly had disdain for Bush’s public kind of faith. “It’s a particular kind of religiosity,” he said. "It’s the American version of the same fundamentalist impulse that we see in Saudi Arabia, in Kashmir, in religions around the world: Hindu, Jewish, Christian, Muslim. They all have certain features in common. In a world of disconcerting change, when large and complex forces threaten familiar and comfortable guideposts, the natural impulse is to grab hold of the tree trunk that seems to have the deepest roots and hold on for dear life and never question the possibility that it’s not going to be the source of your salvation. And the deepest roots are in philosophical and religious traditions that go way back. You don’t hear very much from them about the Sermon on the Mount, you don’t hear very much about the teachings of Jesus on giving to the poor, or the beatitudes. It’s the vengeance, the brimstone."By the "tree trunk," Gore (probably inadvertently) brings up an allusion to the lignum vitae, the cross on which Jesus hung. Is that really a bad thing to hang onto, whether we're in a time of "change" or stasis?
Gore seems to be attacking religion as an independent standard for measuring whether or not a "change" is desirable. He doesn't bother to refute this idea: he just condescendingly implies that Evangelicals such as President Bush are scaredy-cats who need their faith-blankies to make it through this life. Not like strong, virile Alpha Male Algore, who is unafraid of change. (Except climate change. That scares the crap out of him.)
Were we saved through the Sermon on the Mount? Nope. The Beatitudes, which Gore apparently thinks is separate from the Sermon on the Mount? Again, no. Are we saved by giving to the poor? Well, in a way: if we unite our wills to God's, and perform works of mercy, that's part of how we "work out our salvation," as the Bible says.
Salvation begins, is sustained, and ends in the person of Jesus Christ, crucified for our sins on the "tree" which Evangelicals, like other Christians, hold onto for dear life. Algore was a divinity student for a while -- maybe he skipped class the day they covered this topic. And why is he saying such nasty things about tree-hugging, anyway?
Salvation begins, is sustained, and ends in the person of Jesus Christ. Algore was a divinity student for a while -- maybe he skipped class the day they covered this topic.
Didn't he go to Harvard Divinity school. If so, then that explains his attitude and theological outlook right there.
I believe that Gore attended Vanderbilt for divinity, not sure.
If Al Gore really embraced the cross of Christ and understood of futility of the flesh to attain to the fulness of the glory of God ("for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God... there is none righteous, no not one") then perhaps he would be a little less cocky and a lot less confident in governments of men as moral actors in providing for human welfare. But Gore's gospel is of enlightened liberal government action, not in the transformed hearts and lives of Christians saved by grace worshipfully living out their faith by good deeds to the glory of God, the furtherance of the Gospel, and the compassionate fulfillment of the physical needs of the starved, the naked, and imprisoned, the ill, and the homeless.
Many, many liberals have been making this argument since 9/11--Barbara Ehrenreich and Robert Reich come to mind. The idea that the human being is not the measure of all things, that we are part of a larger universe that answers to a higher Divine power, is anathema to this mindset.
This worldview sees in any recognition, and submission to, any reality or authority greater than man, an abdication of responsibility-a "putz-mentality" that can't deal with life. It believes, on a blind faith that abdicates reason, that we can't know anything beyond the empirical reality accessible to our senses.
Human passions in this worldview are utterly personal and autonomous. The greatest sacrelige ist interfere with someone's autonomous exercise of their passions, however destructive, disordered, or dangerous to society.
In reality, of course, man is a rational creature whose reason, free will, and ability to form relationships, love, and excel are signs that we are made in the image of God. We are part of a coherent universe, a cosmos created by, held in being by, being redeemed by, and destined for, an Eternal Logos. Jesus Christ, a Logos who became flesh and dwelt among us, in whom the fulness of God was pleased to dwell, and who is reconciling all things to Himself through the blood of His cross.
To love Christ and live out his love to others is anything but the dangerous fundamentalism Gore fears. It is to cooperate with God our Father in the unpredictable and decidedly uncomfortable business of His redeeming us from sin--of saving souls.
What *is* dangerous is deciding that man is the measure of all things, and then massacring millions--be they Ukrainians, Jews, unborn babies, Cambodian intellectuals, or any other inconvenient groups--who supposedly stand in the way of secular utopia. The 20th Century's secular ideologies, rooted in the worldview Gore champions, piled skulls to heights no religious conflict has ever achieved.
The only thing as dangerous is secularism is false monotheism that teaches an absolute God but denies that man bears God's image. Secularism denies the image of God by deifying man. Islam denies the image of God by denying man's dignity. Either way, as history shows, the result is piles of skulls.
Gore attended Vanderbilt for law, not divinity. Not that he learned any more law at Vandy than he did Christian thought at Harvard . . . that is, other than buzzwords like "no controlling authority."
I stand corrected. I should have written more carefully to say that I believe perhaps he took some side courses in divinity at Vanderbilt.
But yeah, on points of law and theology he's off base. Very sad to lack wisdom in understanding both in terms of secular and spiritual pursuits.
Of course, the great crimes against humanity of the 19th and 20th centuries were the work of post-Christian secularists like Gore.
Charles! Don't you know that religion is the biggest cause of all wars? Okay, sure, very few religious wars were fought before the Reformation, and just about every "religious" war has had other (non-religious) motivations mixed into the brew.
Please don't bring up the millions who died under the various socialisms, Communism and Nazism being the most prominent examples. They were all noble experiments.
Beregond. How true.
Ted Kennedy has said similar things, the Nine Sitters said something similar in the Casey decision. John Edwards said that 'this epidemic of hate can be removed with the right policies'
I don't know what they'll do or not do, but the Infamous Act gives them the 'authority' to imitate Uncle Joe if they want to. They seem to want to. Whether they have the 'courage' to try remains to be seen.