Gore on God in Government
Thanks to Blog From the Capital for catching this one.
Al Gore was on Larry King yesterday, promoting his new book, The Assault on Reason (BTW, I love that title -- it perfectly explains the situation that caused TeachTheFacts to come into existence). The discussion came around to the candidacy of Mitt Romney, and Larry King got Gore onto the subject of religion.
This strikes me as a very credible way to look at it:
I'm glad to know America still has somebody who can be this cool, clear, and articulate. This is exactly the right way to think about the interrelationship of religion and political leadership.
Al Gore was on Larry King yesterday, promoting his new book, The Assault on Reason (BTW, I love that title -- it perfectly explains the situation that caused TeachTheFacts to come into existence). The discussion came around to the candidacy of Mitt Romney, and Larry King got Gore onto the subject of religion.
This strikes me as a very credible way to look at it:
KING: Is Mormonism a fair issue or not a fair issue?
GORE: I do not -- I don't think it's a fair issue. I really don't. I would like to think we are past that. People say, well, this is a special case. I don't think it's a special case. I think that he's entitled to his own beliefs. And incidentally, Larry, in "The Assault on Reason" there is a very long hard-hitting section on this that goes back to our founding fathers, goes back to the debates that we had more than 200 years ago about why religion should be kept out of the way in which our decisions are made.
Except to the extent that individuals, of course, who are motivated by their religious faith, as I am, as so many people are, are going to make that a part of their decisions. But here's the critical distinction. When America was founded, they -- our founders said, OK look, we are not going to pretend that whoever is elected to office has been ordained by the almighty to be the decision maker. The person who is elected is elected by us, the people of this country. And the divine right of kings was rejected by the founders of the United States.
And what replaced that, the divine right of individuals in this sense, we believe that we are all created equal. And that we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights. So the relationship that our founders believed was appropriate for -- between America and God was their belief that every individual has certain rights and has dignity because that person is a child of God.
Now, for those who don't believe in God, I'm not proselytizing. I'm just telling you what I believe and what our founders believed. But what -- but this has been twisted around in recent times by some people who want to convey the impression that God belongs, if not to a particular political party, that God has a particular political ideology and that those who disagree with a right-wing approach to this or that are against God.
That is an anti-American view. That is completely contrary to the spirit of America. It is an American heresy and people in both parties ought to reject that and fight against it. CNN LARRY KING LIVE
I'm glad to know America still has somebody who can be this cool, clear, and articulate. This is exactly the right way to think about the interrelationship of religion and political leadership.
posted by JimK at 11:56 AM
30 Comments:
Boston Children's Hospital clinic to treat transgender children and adolescents:
http://www.childrenshospital.org/views/april07/new_clinic_addresses_intersex_and_gender_issues.html
Cool. CRC's take on this is different.
Btw, who is CRCPrecious?
rrjr
Jim writes,
I'm glad to know America still has somebody who can be this cool, clear, and articulate. This is exactly the right way to think about the interrelationship of religion and political leadership.
Since this is an area I have been reading in I do know a little something about this subject.
Northwest Ordinance of 1787
ART. 3. Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.
Now I am not sure how this statement of the Continental Congress under the Articles of Confederation would square with Gore's assertion that "religion should be kept out of the way in which our decisions are made" but I guess I'll just have to read the book, as the expression goes.
Then Gore asserts,
And what replaced that, the divine right of individuals in this sense, we believe that we are all created equal. And that we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights. So the relationship that our founders believed was appropriate for -- between America and God was their belief that every individual has certain rights and has dignity because that person is a child of God.
If Gore is such an expert on Church-State Relations, not to mention "inalienable rights", then why doesn't he enumerate them??? Come now, they can't be that difflicult...they are essentially 3 or 4 (depending on how one counts them).
Uh, there is LIBERTY...yeah, that is one.
Hummm, there is also that PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS thing.
There is that version that had a right to PROPERTY, though that was taken out in the final version.
And then there was one more...hummm, what could that have been? OH! That's right...the inalienable right to LIFE! As someone who was once a protector of HUMAN life and no longer is, I am not surprised that Al Gore "forgot" to number them all. As the Church Lady from SNL would say, "How connvvveeeenient!"
The book is on order...I can't wait.
Umm, Orin, I'm not sure if you noticed this, but the Articles of Confederation didn't work out and were replaced by the Constitution. Just thought you'd like to know.
How about this quote from Chairman Gore?:
"every individual has certain rights and has dignity because that person is a child of God."
Pro-choice advocates don't believe this. They think if certain the life is inconvenient, it doesn't need to be protected by the government.
"I'm just telling you what I believe and what our founders believed. But what -- but this has been twisted around in recent times by some people who want to convey the impression that God belongs, if not to a particular political party, that God has a particular political ideology and that those who disagree with a right-wing approach to this or that are against God."
This idea that people shouldn't discuss God in the public square and, if they do, they're implying that God is partisan is really the unAmerican. People have always done that in the American political discourse. Abolitionists, prohibitionist, civil rights movement, pro-life have all discussed what they God would have us do. Everyone is free to disagree but saying it's a topic that shouldn't be discussed is but another example of liberal syndrome.
Anon, your position would be easier to defend if all pro-choice advocates were atheists, or even better for you, Satanists. They're not. Abortion is a choice that people have to make sometimes, whether you like it or not.
Further, your interpretation of Gore's statement is ... well, it's so far out of bounds it'll have to be shelved under Fiction.
JimK
"Anon, your position would be easier to defend if all pro-choice advocates were atheists, or even better for you, Satanists."
Why is that?
"They're not. Abortion is a choice that people have to make sometimes, whether you like it or not."
Like when?
"Further, your interpretation of Gore's statement is ... well, it's so far out of bounds it'll have to be shelved under Fiction."
Liberal syndrome.
That's the best strategy. Don't talk about it.
Anyone notice the recent campaign by the media to deify Gore?
Check out the cover of this week's Time magazine:
"The Last Temptation of Al Gore"
Maybe we should seperate the new Gore religion from the state.
Since when is one magazine "the media?" Have any other media outlets have joined this "recent campaign" you imagine exists?
Orin, as a member of a religion that practices ritualized cannibalism I don't put much faith in your opinion on religion.
"Orin, as a member of a religion that practices ritualized cannibalism I don't put much faith in your opinion on religion."
This is what Nero used to say about Christians.
Congratulations, Randi.
You're in infamous company.
Anonymous, if you're denying that Catholics practice ritualized cannibalism you're virtually alone in your denial. Its called communion, where Catholics eat a 'bread' host which represents the body of Jesus and drink wine which represents his blood. The priest even states body and blood of Christ when you take communion. I know - I was forced to partake in this bizarre ritual as a child.
I understood your comment, Randi. I just didn't know if you realized the Romans said the same thing when they fed Christians to the lions.
The Romans were the Nazis of their time and you seem to see it their way.
And anonymous, the Romans and the Nazis liked to eat and sleep - I guess by the same token that makes you just like them too.
And according to you Jesus approved of the Romans because he cared for some of them.
Randi writes,
Orin, as a member of a religion that practices ritualized cannibalism I don't put much faith in your opinion on religion.
Wow! That took my breath away...and that is saying quite a bit. Wow! (LOL!)
Anonymous writes,
"Orin, as a member of a religion that practices ritualized cannibalism I don't put much faith in your opinion on religion."
This is what Nero used to say about Christians.
Congratulations, Randi.
You're in infamous company.
Thank you anonymous...yes, you are correct; we are known by the company we keep (both physically and philosophically).
Randi Schimnosky "returns fire...and misses AGAIN!,
Anonymous, if you're denying that Catholics practice ritualized cannibalism you're virtually alone in your denial. Its called communion, where Catholics eat a 'bread' host which represents the body of Jesus and drink wine which represents his blood. The priest even states body and blood of Christ when you take communion.
Since I am Eucharistic Minister at my parish I know a little bit about this ritual. In this capacity I am honored to assist my Priest and other in distributing the Body and Blood of Christ. I could go into an explanation why it IS the Body and Blood of Christ, but I try to follow the advice given in St. Matthew 7:6 (look it up...).
I know - I was forced to partake in this bizarre ritual as a child.
I am sorry that you feel this way. Though I was raised LDS I do not feel this way at all; in fact, I am grateful that my parents cared enough about my soul that they did raise me in a specific religious tradition.
Anonymous writes,
I understood your comment, Randi. I just didn't know if you realized the Romans said the same thing when they fed Christians to the lions.
The Romans were the Nazis of their time and you seem to see it their way.
Yes, to their core, the Romans were as much Pagans as the Nazis...so, who has a better track record?...the Pagans?...or the Christians? Well, looking at the last 100 years the prize for the most violent deaths and blood on one's hands would have to go to the Pagans!..(hands down). Now, if Randi wants to dig up all the dead bodies at the hands of the Christians over the ages then fine, dig away (though why limit it to followers of Jesus?...author Jonathan Kirsch doesn't...you might want to check out this book by Kirsch as it will confirm your deepest and darkest fears (prejudices?) about those Hebrews,
God Against the Gods: The History of the War Between Monotheism and Polytheism
Randi starts...no, strike that, STOPS making sense with this NONsensical utterance,
And anonymous, the Romans and the Nazis liked to eat and sleep - I guess by the same token that makes you just like them too.
Please...tell me you can do better than this...please.
And Randi ends it with this,
And according to you Jesus approved of the Romans because he cared for some of them.
Now you are starting to sound like Bart Simpson arguing with any authority figure in close by...Jesus had compassion for all (except the reigning religious authorities of the day), even to a woman caught in the act of adultery (as related in Chapter 8 of St. John),
4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
...
11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
The lesson? He did not endorse they way she was living; He told her to "sin no more".
Well, looking at the last 100 years the prize for the most violent deaths and blood on one's hands would have to go to the Pagans!..(hands down). Now, if Randi wants to dig up all the dead bodies at the hands of the Christians over the ages then fine, dig away (though why limit it to followers of Jesus?...author Jonathan Kirsch doesn't...you might want to check out this book by Kirsch as it will confirm your deepest and darkest fears (prejudices?) about those Hebrews,
Why does your side insist on only looking at some of the data? If you want to compare religion to paganism in terms of "the most violent deaths and blood on one's hands," look at all of history and all religions, not just some.
"God Against the Gods: The History of the War Between Monotheism and Polytheism"
I have this book.
Another interesting book on Christianity in the pagan Roman Empire is: "Augustus to Constantine: the Rise and Triumph of Christianity in the Roman World"
It's worth noting that the Romans, for 140 years in the west and 1000 years in the East lived in a Christian Empire. After 390 (Theodosius), it was an exclusively Christian Empire. The germans who invaded the empire were mostly Christian also (albeit Arian Christians).Gibbon postulated that a major cause of the fall of the empire in the west was the spread of Christianity.
They weren't all that nice after they became Christians, either. The ancient world was a less gentle place than the post-world-war II industrialized west (so far).
I'd like to comment on the idea of Christianity and cannibalism.
The eucharist is exactly a ceremony of human sacrifice and cannibalism. Jesus' death is a garden-variety human sacrifice -- he had to die, that's how the sacrifice-story always goes. And then people eat him: the wafer and the wine are nothing besides a kind of simulated cannibalism. You don't have to infer this or allege it -- the priest says so, right in the ceremony: this is the flesh, this is the blood of Christ.
Don't be ashamed, Orin, and don't think it's preposterous. Jesus is just one more version of the sun god who is killed and returns.
Don't be scandalized, it just puts Christianity in the mainstream. This theme is one that has been repeated through human history many times, in many lands.
Merle
Orin, no matter how you lie about Hitler it won't make it the truth or cover up the obvious - that he and the Nazis were Christians. I suggest you re-read (or read as apparently your beliefs are too feeble to withstand being contradicted) the posts I made about it in this thread:
http://www.teachthefacts.org/2007/05/truth-and-hate.html#comments
Some of the major points:
Hitler affirmed his Christianity repeatedly in one speech and proclamation after another:
http://www.nobeliefs.com/speeches.htm
The Nazis all had "Gott Mitt Uns" (god with us) on their belt buckles. At no point did Hitler renounce his Catholicism and the church never excommunicated him or any Nazi. And despite the urging of the anti-Christian Bormann he never moved against the Catholic church.
Cardinal Secretary of State, Eugenio Pacelli (later to become Pope Pius XII) signed the Concordat between Nazi Germany and the Vatican at a formal ceremony in Rome on 20 July 1933.
The Concordat effectively legitimized Hitler and the Nazi government to the eyes of Catholicism, Christianity, and the world. You can see the picture of this signing ceremony here:
http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm
And also note the pictures of German Bishops and priests giving the Nazi salute, Hitler's Brown army attending mass, Hitler leaving church, a Cardinal in a Nazi parade, the celebration for Bishop Konrad Graf von Preysing (Note the Catholic Chi-Rho Cross to the right of the Nazi flag), and all the other photos showing nazism intertwined with Christianity.
Further showing how inseperable Nazism was with Christianity note these Nazi/Christian artifacts:
http://www.nobeliefs.com/mementoes.htm
See the Nazi Swastika combined with the Christian cross over and over. Look inside the Martin Luther Memorial church - carvings of Jesus with Nazi soldiers, a carving of Hitler holding a storm trooper's hat at the babtismal. Look at the Nazi chaplain's hats displaying christian cross.
Obviously the fact that Hitler and the Nazis were Christians is undeniable. No matter how much of a maniacle revisionist you are you can't cover up all the clear evidence of that.
And Orin, the story about the woman caught in adultery doesn't even belong in the bible. It doesn't appear in the earliest and best manuscripts of the New Testament and didn't appear until roughly (if I remember correctly) until about the year 1200 when it was inserted because it was a popular tale of the time. See Bart D. Ehrman's book "Misquoting Jesus", once again, if I remember correctly starting at page 85 or thereabouts. I don't have the book with me or I'd give you more information and the exact page numbers. I can do so when I have access to it at the beginning of the month. If you want more detail email me by then and I'll forward it to you then.
In any event, for the sake of argument let's say that that story is a "valid" part of the bible (as though any of its valid, snort). That story just proves the point that I was making to anonymous, that just because Jesus cared for some of the Jews doesn't mean he approved of them any more than the Romans, or the woman caught in adultery. Thanks for supporting my point.
Randi is messed up in the head. The misunderstanding of the Bible that been demonstrated by Randi's posts is so multi-faceted and profound that it is difficult to adequately discuss on a blog entry. Mainly, though, Randi quotes things out of context to make offensive points. That's nothing new. Satan, in Matthew 4, did much the same thing in trying to tempt Jesus in the wilderness. Here's the gospel passage Randi has been citing to prove Jesus was anti-semitic, but with a few of the verses before it included to provide context:
"31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
33 They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?
34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
35 And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever.
36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.
37 I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.
38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.
39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.
40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.
41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.
42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it."
Jesus is having a conversation with a group of Jews which the author calls "those Jews which believed on him". Further on, when the author refers to "the Jews", this is who he is referring to: the Jews Jesus was having a conversation with. Interestingly, since Randi has stated that Randi's opinion is that anyone who believes in Jesus can't be a Jew but is a Christian, he was actually referring to a group of Christians, by Randi's definition.
There is much more that could be said here but this is enough to demonstrate that Randi is either deluded or a malicious liar.
Anonymous, this just proves my point. Jesus was seperating the Jews (Christians) who believed in him from those who don't. He was condemning the people of the Jewish(non-christian) religion. Its the same case as with Paul in 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16
"For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews:
Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men:
Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.".
Don't blame me if you don't like what your bible says, I didn't write it.
Its clear you're in serious denial and can't accept the reality of what's written in your bible. Jesus wasn't referring to the christians when he said "ye are of the devil".
"Its clear you're in serious denial and can't accept the reality of what's written in your bible. Jesus wasn't referring to the christians when he said "ye are of the devil"."
No, he wasn't. As is clear from the passage, he was talking about those who want to kill him. If he meant all Jews, as you claim, he would also believe that of Moses, David, Solomon, his mother, et al.
Again, your point here is false and malicious.
Anonymous, he said "ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.".
He said those who don't believe in him, the Jews, seek to kill him because they don't believe. He was referring to all followers of the Jewish(non-christian) faith. He was saying all those who don't believe desire to kill him.
He wasn't referring to Moses, David, or solomon because Jesus hadn't appeared in their time. He may or may not have been condemning his mother, I am not clear whether or not she accepted him although I am aware that he rejected her, saying something to the effect "Woman, I don't know you" and that whoever accepts him must reject their family.
Again, Paul confirms the condemnation of the Jews, he says directly "the Jews:
Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men".
He identified them as Jews because he was condemning Jews in general. If he had been merely condemning the individuals involved he wouldn't have identified them as a religious group, he would have just said the people, or those who killed Jesus please not god.
You're talking in circles and making up your own definitions, Randi. If you mean by anti-Semitic that he was opposed to those Jews during his lifetime who didn't believe in him and wanted to kill him, then who wouldn't be anti-Semitic?
With the opposition to Judeo-Christianity that is a regular part of your repertoire here, seems you would be anti-Semitic too, under your definition.
Anonymous, none of the Jews present expressed a desire to kill Jesus. He was just demonizing them by saying they are of the devil and if you're a non-believer you must want to kill me.
I don't oppose Jews or Christians, I oppose religion in general. Love the sinner, hate the sin.
"Anonymous, none of the Jews present expressed a desire to kill Jesus."
How do you know?
"He was just demonizing them by saying they are of the devil"
Yes, well, you may have heard that Christian doctrine is that you either serve God or the you serve the devil. There is no neutral ground. And it is not just the Jews who didn't believe in him but anyone who doesn't believe in him.
"and if you're a non-believer you must want to kill me."
He was, again, having a conversation with a group of people.
"I don't oppose Jews or Christians, I oppose religion in general. Love the sinner, hate the sin."
So participating in religion is a "sin" to you? Isn't sin a religious concept?
Look at Saturday's Washington Post. Prominent humanists are worried that the new militant atheists who cannot tolerate any religious belief are a new form of implacable fundamentalist.
We all know who the old implacable fundamentalists are.
Saturday's Washington Post also noted that leaders of prominent anti-abortion groups critized James C. Dobson for "wrongly characteriz[ing] the [Supreme] court's April ruling as a victory for abortion foes." The same IN BRIEF section noted that "A declaration signed by Christian, Jewish and Muslim leaders (of the National Council of Churches, the Islamic Society of North America and the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism) calls for government action to combat global warming.
The statement, which was delivered to the White House and members of Congress, calls for mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions."
Anonymous said ""Anonymous, none of the Jews present expressed a desire to kill Jesus."
How do you know?"
Read the whole passage, none of the Jews present expressed a desire to kill Jesus.". He equated rejecting him to desiring to kill him, a further demonization of the Jews.
"He was just demonizing them by saying they are of the devil"
Anonymous said "Yes, well, you may have heard that Christian doctrine is that you either serve God or the you serve the devil. There is no neutral ground. And it is not just the Jews who didn't believe in him but anyone who doesn't believe in him.".
And that's one of the reason's why Christianity is destructive, its an "us vs them" philosophy that prevents people from working for the common good, from working to maximize the benefits and minimize the problems for all in an equal fashion. That's why fairness has to come first, its the only philosophy that can unite the world and end conflict.
"I don't oppose Jews or Christians, I oppose religion in general. Love the sinner, hate the sin."
Anonymous said "So participating in religion is a "sin" to you? Isn't sin a religious concept?".
Yes, participating in the Abrahamic religons (at least) is a sin, and sin is a synonym for wrong-doing.
Anonymous said "Look at Saturday's Washington Post. Prominent humanists are worried that the new militant atheists who cannot tolerate any religious belief are a new form of implacable fundamentalist.".
A fundamentalist is someone who refuses to change her mind regardless of the evidence. Atheists base their knowledge on the evidence, and by definition are not fundamentalists. Its only the religious who proclaim belief regardless of all evidence to the contrary.
Post a Comment
<< Home