A Nobel Prize for an Environmental Evangelist (by Jim Wallis)
Last week, the Nobel committee announced its annual Peace Prize, awarding it jointly to Al Gore and the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It is a significant recognition for Gore, who has been transformed from a presidential candidate who lost (even though he won) into an environmental evangelist who has changed public opinion on the threat of global warming. His response to the award was that he will use it to continue his work to increase awareness of "a true planetary emergency" and press the world's nations to combat its threats. "The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity," Gore told the press.
Gore spent years slogging through presentations to small audiences with a slide show. Now the slide show has become an Academy Award-winning documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, and its author has won a Nobel Prize. His deep and passionate commitment led to his persistence, and that persistence is beginning to show results.
The issue of climate change was there all along, but it took the research of an international committee of scientists and an evangelist who publicized their research to make a difference. Critics say Gore is alarmist, but that's always the role of an evangelist. There is doom to come if you don't change your ways. But redemption is always possible with conversion leading to a change of mind and heart – that leads to a change in direction and life choices. Many of our most effective social change movements have been spurred by spiritual transformation.
There is more and more evidence that the warnings are not exaggerated. The polar ice caps are melting at a shocking rate. In September, the Guardian reported that in one week an area nearly twice the size of the UK had melted in the Arctic. In fact, I recently heard that over the past year, an area as large as the U.S. east of the Mississippi melted. It is indeed a crisis of biblical proportions.
I congratulate Al Gore for the Nobel Peace Prize. He deserves our gratitude and thanks. But more importantly, we need to respond to his altar call and change our lifestyles before it is too late and the doom is upon us.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Maybe Jim Wallis could win the Peace prize ?
Posted by: shirleyujest | October 17, 2007 3:53 PM
Or maybe Gore should have been given a scientific prize instead of the Peace Prize. The Nobel Committee had a chance to recognize some of the people who are literally risking their lives and toiling in relative anonymity around the world to work for peace and justice, but instead they gave it to a millionaire who already has an enormous platform. The award may be an accomplishment for Gore, but it's shameful for the Committee.
Posted by: Eric | October 17, 2007 3:58 PM
While I do not agree with the article at all I find it hard to believe that anybody calling themselves a Christian could or would be a liberal. Wake up people. Liberals do not like Christians or anything they stand for. If a democratic gets elected president in 2008 watch out. Gone will be all your freedoms not to mention a bunch of legislation passed that make it easier for women to get abortions and homosexuals to merry. Also hate crimes legislation will get passed as well. Yes taking care of the environment and the poor is important. But at what cost? If you give up your principles what good are you doing? I would say you are only making things worse as seems to be the case with liberal policies on helping the poor. On global warming please do not buy the hype. In fifteen years people might look back on this and laugh at us for making such a big deal over nothing. Weather is cyclical and nothing that we humans do or do not is going to change that fact. It is all about the nanny state trying to control what you and I can and can not do. As a christian the only person I answer to is to God. Have a bleesed day.
Posted by: conseravative christian | October 17, 2007 4:24 PM
Conservative Christian I have conservatism flowing through my toe jam , and I found your comments off the mark . Because a person has a belief in government being a tool helping another person has nothing to do with them not being Christian ! It can easily be accepted by a Christian view . Your wrong on that .
Your right if liberals win ther next election , many social issues that most conservatives , including pro life folks who are not always Christians , People who believe in the importance of the family foundation which does not just speak to Christians , but Mormons , Orthodox Jews , Muslims , even athesists . Supreme Court Justices hang on who wins the next election .
The odds are in your every day life will change little regardless who is president . My liberal friends seem to think it matters much for the poor , I debate that short term government help often causes long time problems for the poor .
I like you do not see government as part of the problem , and the slippery slope of secualism and moral relativism has hurt us as a culture , and has hurt the Church . Especially the liberal church . You know hionestly the conservative churches have a list of probelems inside our churches also , you know that .
But the point is debate , do not allow yourself to fall for the rhetoric of people here who use the Bible as a hammer , don't all churches have those folks ?
My Faith does provide a world view that causes me to share perhaps who we both would vote for politically , but be careful of how you say things . I found that hurtful to anyone coming on to this site and happened to be a liberal Christian .
Posted by: Mick Sheldon | October 17, 2007 4:55 PM
I find that most of the gay folks I know are already merry! (Self included.)
Posted by: littlebuddha73 | October 17, 2007 5:08 PM
I am concerned by Wallis here labelling Gore an evangelist and by the use of religious language (altar call) to describe our response. There is already an (unreasonable) fear of GW being pushed as part of an 'environmental theocracy.'
I know he's speaking allegorically (in which case wouldn't 'prophet' be more appropriate than 'evangelist?') but liberal Christians must be careful still to distinguish between themselves and others (political/environmental/social) who may agree with them on certain issues, but who do not share their faith stance.
If we can't maintain that separation then the conservative claims of being in bed with the devil will be given undue credence.
Be Blessed,
Posted by: Trent | October 17, 2007 5:16 PM
Al Gore got the Peace Prize.
So did Yassir Arafat. And that pretty much says everything that one needs to say about any credibility the Prize committee still has, in my book.
Global warming is about politics. It has to do with scientists continuing to receive grant money. It has little to do with climate change. Climate change is occurring, without much doubt. That is why Greenland is now covered with ice, and Iceland is almost all green. Climate on this planet has changed. But what is it about our current climate that makes us think, for a minute, that it is "the preferred climate?"
We've been warming, as a planet, since going through the "little Ice Age" of the middle ages. Maybe we will continue to do so. Maybe not. Many scientists doubt it. They are good scientists, they just disagree with current 'political' theory, and they don't much care about the grant money. Many others think we may continue to warm; but the basic fact of life is, we really dont know, for sure, why we are warming. My own guess is - - it probably has something to do with the Sun!! But my guess doesnt count.
In any case -- Al Gore, the politician, got the Peace Prize. So did Yassir. And that pretty much tells the story.
Posted by: joekc | October 17, 2007 5:34 PM
And now my comments about this being a religious movement are vindicated. To label Gore as an evangelist is to admit that GW is the new Kabalah, or Christian Science. This is a new religion, the worship of the created, instead of worshiping the Creator, which is idolitry and blasphemy. As I said before, let us throw off the rags of this heresy, and live as good stewards of the limitless resources God has entrusted us to.
Paul C. Quillman
Posted by: Paul C. Quillman | October 17, 2007 5:50 PM
It has to do with scientists continuing to receive grant money
You know the funny thing is this is what I hear my conservative Christian friends say when we're talkign about other scientific issues like evolution. There isn't any meat to this accusation - there's far more private money being granted by big oil to policy think tanks and scientists to counter the global warming consensus. And on another point - not too many non-American scientists believe that global warming is not a man-made issue. Now that certainly tells me a lot about the politics of the situation
Even more ironic than Yassir winning the prize was Kissinger - at least his co-awardee at that time had the moral conviction to turn down the prize.
So Gore won a prize - big deal! But if his campaign of awareness leads more people to live in a more economicall and environmentally sustainable way then that really is a big deal!
Posted by: splinterlog | October 17, 2007 5:52 PM
Huh:
"Liberals do not like Christians or anything they stand for."
So, if I am Liberal leaning...AND a Christian...I must not like myself...I'm so conflicted!
Posted by: squeaky | October 17, 2007 6:13 PM
conservativechristian,
I should have read your entire post before my knee jerk reaction to the first thing that caught my eye and dragged it fifteen feet. I continue:
"Gone will be all your freedoms"
Umm--did you realize that Habeus Corpus no longer exists? What freedoms will we lose that we haven't already under the current climate of fear? Maybe it will be legal for the government to perform illegal wiretaps on our phones...uh, waitaminute...
"homosexuals to merry."
Dang--littlebudha beat me to the punch on that one!
"Yes taking care of the environment and the poor is important. But at what cost? If you give up your principles what good are you doing?"
Why does it have to be either or? Why not both and? You put forth a false choice here. And, did it ever occur to you that perhaps the abortion issue and poverty may just be linked?
"On global warming please do not buy the hype."
please cite your sources demonstrating to me that you know what global warming is, how it works, and why it is hype. You must demonstrate that you are have an informed opinion, otherwise you have bought into a different hype yourself.
"Weather is cyclical and nothing that we humans do or do not is going to change that fact."
It has been demonstrated that we already affect the weather on a local scale--large cities tend to be much warmer than the surrounding countryside, for example (urban heat island). Humans have already been responsible for larger scale change--areas that have been overgrazed have become deserts. So, yes, we humans CAN and do impact climate.
"As a christian the only person I answer to is to God."
So, if you have to answer to Him, what do you think He might say about your treatment of His creation, or about your treatment of the least of these when our insistence on cheap energy comes at the expense of their way of life (google mountaintop mining, for example)?
Posted by: squeaky | October 17, 2007 6:28 PM
Thanks, Mick, for offering a voice of reason.
"I have conservatism flowing through my toe jam "
great quote--although, I'm not sure I like the visual it conjured up =)
Posted by: squeaky | October 17, 2007 6:31 PM
Look, Quillman,
"This is a new religion, the worship of the created, instead of worshiping the Creator, which is idolitry and blasphemy. As I said before, let us throw off the rags of this heresy, and live as good stewards of the limitless resources God has entrusted us to."
I don't worship the created. I worship the Creator. And because I worship the Creator I care about His creation. My care for His creation is an act of worship towards the Creator. It isn't blasphemy.
Part of being good stewards is the recognition that God blessed us with many resources, but NOT unlimited resources. He does not want us to be materialistic, greedy, and gluttonous, but that is what we are. Do you acknowledge that we have not been good stewards of His creation?
Posted by: squeaky | October 17, 2007 6:42 PM
Look, Quillman,
"This is a new religion, the worship of the created, instead of worshiping the Creator, which is idolitry and blasphemy. As I said before, let us throw off the rags of this heresy, and live as good stewards of the limitless resources God has entrusted us to."
I don't worship the created. I worship the Creator. And because I worship the Creator I care about His creation. My care for His creation is an act of worship towards the Creator. It isn't blasphemy.
Part of being good stewards is the recognition that God blessed us with many resources, but NOT unlimited resources. He does not want us to be materialistic, greedy, and gluttonous, but that is what we are. Do you acknowledge that we have not been good stewards of His creation?
Posted by: squeaky | October 17, 2007 6:44 PM
joekc opined:
"Al Gore got the Peace Prize.
So did Yassir Arafat. And that pretty much says everything that one needs to say about any credibility the Prize committee still has, in my book."
Yassir Arafat got the Peace Prize in conjunction with Yitzhak Rabin, for the most profound (although still inadequate) step yet towards peace between Israel and Palestine: recognizing each other's mutual right to exist. This was a radical reversal for BOTH nations, and they were on course to lay the groundwork for a stable and livable Levant - had Rabin not been assassinated by a psychotically religious Israeli.
Your implication that Arafat did not deserve recognition for this achievement shows either your thorough ignorance or your thorough dishonesty.
Posted by: Hali | October 17, 2007 6:49 PM
conservative christian wrote:
"While I do not agree with the article at all I find it hard to believe that anybody calling themselves a Christian could or would be a liberal."
Jesus was a liberal. But then, he didn't call himself a Christian.
Posted by: Hali | October 17, 2007 6:51 PM
shows either your thorough ignorance or your thorough dishonesty.
Posted by: Hali
Jesus was a liberal.
Posted by: Hali
Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you
Jesus Christ
Posted by: meandme | October 17, 2007 7:33 PM
Jesus was a conservative.
Read Matthew 5:17-20.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 17, 2007 7:36 PM
"Your implication that Arafat did not deserve recognition for this achievement shows either your thorough ignorance or your thorough dishonesty."
Um, he backed out of the treaty for which he won the award and, you know, killed people afterward. So we have someone who killed innocent people on purpose, was rewarded with a nobel peace prize for not doing it anymore, and then began doing it again. Even for those who are as aggresively anti-Israel as Sojo, your comment is a stretch.
"Jesus was a liberal. But then, he didn't call himself a Christian."
Jesus wasn't liberal or conservative, and the statement that he didn't call himself a Christian is essentially meaningless. He calls us to be Christians.
Posted by: kevin s. | October 17, 2007 7:37 PM
kevin,
I took up your challenge and undertook some more reading on inerrancy and discovered that the Southern Baptists dropped it back in 2000. So now you're back to just the pentescostals.
If you could point me to a website that describes your view of inerrancy I'd appreciate that, because most of what I found was either critical of it or explicitly stated that scripture was divine (which would be the idolatrous position I spoke of).
Be Blessed,
Posted by: Trent | October 17, 2007 8:34 PM
>>>"...not to mention a bunch of legislation passed that make it easier for women to get abortions and homosexuals to merry." conservative something or other
don't homosexuals already merry?
Sorry to join the discussion late, had to mop out the basement cuz the damn Artic's melting so fast
Posted by: canucklehead | October 17, 2007 8:50 PM
conservative christian wrote:
"Yes taking care of the environment and the poor is important. But at what cost? If you give up your principles what good are you doing?"
Jesus said:
"Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
hey conservative christian,
it sounds to me like taking care of the poor comes at a great cost. and if taking care of the poor is what we have to do in order to follow Christ (which makes us a Christian, no?), then maybe our "principles" should include the poor.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 17, 2007 8:52 PM
>>>"As a christian the only person I answer to is God." conservative christian
truly a scary statement!!!
littlebuddah73 and squeaky, you big hairy liberals, you beat me to the punch on the "merry" thing - we stink alike!
Posted by: Anonymous | October 17, 2007 8:55 PM
"Jesus was a Capricorn, he ate organic food?"
-John Hagee
Posted by: canucklehead | October 17, 2007 8:58 PM
"I took up your challenge and undertook some more reading on inerrancy and discovered that the Southern Baptists dropped it back in 2000."
What do you mean by "dropped" it? Their statement of faith says this:
"The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy."
That jibes with my definition of inerrancy, and for the purposes of our previous discussion, it is certainly close enough. Recall, that I said I personally hold to a view that is more or less inerrancy. The World Baptist Alliance uses similar language.
Instead of Googling around for criticisms of inerrancy (or short summations thereof), I was more asking you to at least read a conservative theologian or two. Hell, read Greg Boyd, who is pretty theologically liberal, but is fire & brimstone compared to the "if I agree with it, it's in the Bible!" fantasy.
If you are looking for a summary of what it is, the Chicago statement is readily available.
"So now you're back to just the pentescostals."
I actually didn't include the Pentecostals, as they are not considered to be of the protestant. I also have the Methodists, Lutherans, and Calvinists.
Posted by: kevin s. | October 17, 2007 9:27 PM
took up your challenge and undertook some more reading on inerrancy and discovered that the Southern Baptists dropped it back in 2000. So now you're back to just the pentescostals.
Interesting I found this , also after reading about the denominations which followed the belief of errancy , they would be more inclined to place their values and empphasis on different ministries then say politics and using government . Sometimes people in my denomination , Pentecostal Assembly of God , will describe someone in our church or ourselves as being so heavenly bound they/we are no earthly good . Which is a self criticism and am trying to be honest with you of why perhaps certain believers will not follow Jim Wallis ideas .
Anglican/Episcopalian - Inspired. Book of Common Prayers, the Catechism
Assembly of God - Inspired and inerrant.
Baptist - Inspired and inerrant.
Lutheran - LCMS: Inspired and inerrant. ELCA: Inspired but not inerrant.
Methodist - Inspired and inerrant.
Presbyterian - PCUSA: "For some the Bible is inerrant; for others it is not necessarily factual, but it breathes with the life of God."
Roman Catholic - God is the author of sacred Scripture
Posted by: Mick Sheldon | October 17, 2007 9:28 PM
Trent also I went to the Southern Baptist Convention and from reading this i think you may have been confused about the errancy and the belief of that denomination . Seems like thse guys get excited about their belief of errancy in the word of God . .
http://www.sbc.net/redirect.asp?url=http://www.sbcannualmeeting.org/sbc00/news.asp?ID=1927611432
Posted by: Mick Sheldon | October 17, 2007 9:38 PM
Kevin,
Southern Baptist Convention adopted inerrancy in 1979 and dropped it in 2000. But there are groups on both sides of that fence. By dropped it I mean they specifically changed the wording of Baptist Faith and Message to exclude reference to inerrancy. Realistically though they are divided on the issue with Alliance of Baptists and Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (CBF) on the not inerrant side.
Wesleyans and Methodists hold an infallible view of Scripture with regard to faith and practice (infallible is not the same as inerrant and notice the limitation to faith and practice).
Lutherans in the US and Canada are split on the issue, with the largest bodies, the ELCA and ELCIC not holding to inerrancy. World wide Lutherans have generally held that the Bible was the ultimate authority for faith and practice (i.e. not inerrant), though for a period they held an inerrant position (during 17th century).
Catholics have multiple formal positions, (which to me seem to be in conflict). Pope Leo XIII (1810-1903) taking an inerrant view, but Pope Pius XII in 1945 permitting liberal exploration of the scriptures. The Modern Catechism (#110) does not support inerrancy.
And my request for a conservative theologian or two to read on the matter was serious, by the way. My (limited) theological training in the Methodist/Presbyterian line did not include any consideration of an inerrant position. Everything I was exposed to revolved around higher criticism.
Be Blessed,
Posted by: Trent | October 17, 2007 10:21 PM
Thanks, Trent, for pointing out that "Southern Baptists" are not the same thing as the Southern Baptist Convention. In fact, the SBC is pretty much down to white, conservative fundamentalists. The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, by way of comparison, has refused to back down on such basic Baptist principles as the separation of church and state and the right of each congregation to ordain whomever they see fit. An inherent part of being a Baptist, in other words, is still the gut-felt conviction that nobody else is going to tell you what to think, ever. That ultimately means a lot more than an abstract doctrine like inerrancy.
Posted by: Another nonymous | October 17, 2007 10:38 PM
Jim, Jim, Jim,
"even though he won" - Sheeeesh, if you don't like the electoral college way of electing United States presidents, work to get the system changed. I am so sick of sour grapes.
Let me first say that I totally admire Anjelina Jolie and Bono for "walking the walk" in their efforts to make the world a better place. That being said, hypocrites such as Al Gore, with his 10,000 square foot, 20-room mansion with an additional 8 bathrooms, pool and poolhouse, and totally separate guesthouse, make me want to puke. Flying chartered jets and buying carbon offsets just don't cut it if you want to "talk the talk" but fail to do the right thing in your personal life. I wasted $10 on "An Inconvenient Truth" ($20 if you count the wife), and the only thing I could totally agree with was when he pointed out the world's exploding population problem. Of course, Al considers himself above this with the four children he's fathered. It's like he considers himself above all of the global warming concerns simply because he buys carbon offsets. Well, la di da. What Gore has done to bring about world peace escapes me.
Posted by: Cads | October 17, 2007 10:44 PM
Apparently there as many sorts of Christians, often with mutually exclusionary beliefs, as there are Baskin-Robbins ice cream flavors.
It would be almost impossible for an unbeliever to determine what a person believes merely from the self-label "Christian."
Mostly it is heavily flavored by particular cultural taste, just like B-R selections.
You can be a fire-breathing war-monger or an effete pacifist, or anything else, and similarly
claim the label for your own and its conferring of divine authority on your own preferences.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | October 17, 2007 10:44 PM
So right, N.M. Rod. It seems we may be individuals, regardless of our self-labels. I believe our Creator wants us to take care of each other and our planet (Read the Bible for evidence.) Many of you might call me a liberal because I believe Al Gore is right, because I would give health care to poor people, educate the country and cut back on the defense budget to do so (the very accurate info that convinced me: See Ben Cohen's [Ben & Jerry's I.C.] Oreo Cookie version of the U.S. budget @ truemajority.com.) And I wouldn't be offended or hurt to be called a "liberal" because it's just a label. I believe what I believe and read facts before I decide what I think is right.
But many "liberals" would call me a conservative because I disagree with abortion on demand.
Thank God for individualism! We make each other think and occasionally correct one another's spelling!
Pray for Peace (Our Creator wants that too!)
Posted by: ibsimone | October 17, 2007 11:33 PM
Squeaky:
Do you acknowledge that we have not been good stewards of His creation?
Paul:
I will take that statement one further: Outside of the enabling of the Holy Spirit, we are not capable of being good stewards of anything. As I said, this religious fervor for crisis, being GW, or war, or obesity it is all the same thing. W
Posted by: Paul C. Quillman | October 17, 2007 11:46 PM
Squeaky:
Do you acknowledge that we have not been good stewards of His creation?
Paul:
I will take that statement one further: Outside of the enabling of the Holy Spirit, we are not capable of being good stewards of anything. As I said before, lets get away from this new religious nonsense. Worship is NOT about screaming like chicken little.
My comments about unlimited resources are related to the fact that God is the one who created the universe. Why would you think that we would not have enough resources?
Posted by: Paul C. Quillman | October 17, 2007 11:59 PM
possibly because more than 1/3 of the world's population goes to bed hungry every night
Posted by: canucklehead | October 18, 2007 12:44 AM
Please Mr. Wallis -
'...transformed from a presidential candidate who lost (even though he won) into an environmental evangelist...'
Even though he won - NOT. If he had - he would have taken it to court in a heart beat. DGIH - will you stop being the mouth piece for the liberals and there wining.
Enviromentalal Evangelist...
Don't anyone correct me on my comment(s) on Gore. Wallis just crowned him the EE and it is open season.
"a true planetary emergency"
Gore cares nothing for the poluting that is being done by India and China be cause he can't tax the pajots out of them.
Gore is alarmist, but that's always the role of an evangelist.
BULL! BULL! and more BULL!
Evangelism and Alarmist have nothing to do with each other. Most of the 'alarmists' in the Christian relm burned out fast. Scaring people into the Kingdom does not work in the long run. By equating Climate Change and Making Diciples either cheapens one or elevates the other. I will always maintain that one soul finding freedom in Christ is more important than worshiping at the door step of Enviromentalism. Wallis' phrasing basically makes them the same.
'...large as the U.S. east of the Mississippi melted. It is indeed a crisis of biblical proportions.
Are you sure? You have proof positive that this have never ever happened before. You are putting forth facts that can not be proven by your theory.
'...we need to respond to his altar call and change...'
So what does the choir sing as people file forward at the Gore Alter? What litany will the recite once they arrive?
Blessed be the Al - Blessed be the Al
Gore is the Savior today
Blessed be the Al - Blessed be the Al
Gore is the Savior today
Sorry 'P' - Gore worship on this site is over the top. Wallis has cannonized him and he now is the patron saint of Sojo.
Gore has an Oscar and a Noble. Way doesn't Wallis create the Sojo and then Al can have a Triple Crown.
Hail Albert - full of grace...
Whatever -
.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 18, 2007 1:14 AM
An inherent part of being a Baptist, in other words, is still the gut-felt conviction that nobody else is going to tell you what to think, ever. That ultimately means a lot more than an abstract doctrine like inerrancy.
Posted by: Another nonymous
Those who oppose the doctrine of inerrancy must consider questions such as these:
How do you adhere to the full inspiration of Scripture if you believe that it contains errors?
If there are errors in Scripture, how does this reflect on the character of the Spirit of Truth?
If God was unable to work through sinful men to give us a perfect written Word, can we still believe that he was able to work through a sinful woman to give us a perfect incarnate Word?
If God was unable to communicate with us perfectly, what does this say about his sovereignty?
If the Bible is untrustworthy on “small” things, is it sensible to trust it on “big” things? If Scripture is errant, how can it be fully authoritative?
If it is errant, who will determine which passages we are to believe and which we are to reject?
Is human reason to be the arbiter? Or is the priesthood of believers to be reduced to a dependence on the pronouncements of an intellectual elite? Like a Jim Wallis ?
Posted by: Anonymous | October 18, 2007 4:32 AM
Anom In Britian a court listed nine (9) scientific errors found in Gore’s film.
In this case supporting an inconvenient truth as a documentary means taking a political position and supporting the person who supports it .
Intersesting you find people who have a belief that the Bible is true are to be considered unable to think for themselves .
Because it does not take a rocket scientists , for that matter even a climate scientist to see this movie was propaganda . When you have the general public looking for leadership on these issues , and one side provides its main piece of information riddled with falsehoods , you got to wonder why they are not backing away the film instead of embracing it ?
Posted by: Mick Sheldon | October 18, 2007 5:11 AM
Question: In what way is global warming related to peace?
Answer: The two are not related.
Question: Then why was the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to a peddler of global warming propoganda?
Answer: It does not matter because the Prize is essentially meaningless. The fact that the prize was once awarded to Jimmy Carter is ample evidence that it has no meaning or relevance anyway.
Posted by: Brad | October 18, 2007 8:54 AM
"Let me first say that I totally admire Anjelina Jolie and Bono for "walking the walk" in their efforts to make the world a better place. That being said, hypocrites such as Al Gore, with his 10,000 square foot, 20-room mansion with an additional 8 bathrooms, pool and poolhouse,... "
Cads, Cads, are you under the impression that Bono lives in a hut with no running water? I would imagine his lifestyle is at least as lavish as Al Gore's.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 18, 2007 8:55 AM
"Let me first say that I totally admire Anjelina Jolie and Bono for "walking the walk" in their efforts to make the world a better place. That being said, hypocrites such as Al Gore, with his 10,000 square foot, 20-room mansion with an additional 8 bathrooms, pool and poolhouse,... "
Cads, Cads, are you under the impression that Bono lives in a hut with no running water? I would imagine his lifestyle is at least as lavish as Al Gore's.
Posted by: I and I | October 18, 2007 8:56 AM
"Question: In what way is global warming related to peace?
Answer: The two are not related."
The two are indeed related. The Nobel committe wasn't acting stupidly or telling the world that they forgot to wake up from their dreams. They know exactly what they are doing. If even some of the scenarios projected to be a result of the warming of earth's atmosphere, the chances are that we will witness major increases in human conflict and warfare. Just two possibilities:
1. Conflict caused as humans scramble for increasingly hard-to-find sources of fresh water;
2. Conflict resulting from humans displaced by shoreline erosion and ocean inundation, as the displaced persons seek safer places to live.
Don't kid yourselves. Global warming is a recipe for the proliferation and intensification of warfare. The Nobel committee recognizes that any effort to curtail or limit the effects of atmospheric warming is also indirectly an effort to secure peace. By bringing the threat to public consciousness, the IPCC and Mr. Gore certainly deserved the peace prize.
On another note, it seems like the GW deniers have taken a new tactic: equating the taking up of the climate change issue with some kind of new form of earth worship or neo-pagan religion. We see that in some of the postings here. And yesterday, my local newspaper ran a column by Cal Thomas in which he called global warming a "cult". This is just another form of ad hominem, it seems to me. It's a lot easier to engage in name-calling than to come up with reasoned counter-arguments. To do the latter, gosh, one might actually have to read the scientific literature that details the evidence on which GW theories are based.
One could just as easily, and I think more validly, maintain that GW denial is a cult, what with its emphasis on faith-based pseudoscience and its refusal to look at the actual evidence. But I'd rather not stoop to name calling here. I'd rather move forward to talk about what we can do.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | October 18, 2007 10:18 AM
Brad--
"What does global warming have to do with peace? "
If you thought about it even a little, you would recognize the answer to that. I'll give you a hint: What does oil have to do with war?
As for Jimmy Carter--I guess he never did anything for peace...just a few summit meetings here and there to negotiate peace between warring factions. Even when he was no longer president...nothing major, though...
Posted by: Anonymous | October 18, 2007 10:23 AM
"Posted by: Trent | October 17, 2007 5:16 PM"
I agree with Trent that Rev. Wallis might have been feeding into this global-warming-as-religion nonsense by comparing Al Gore to an evangelist. But I think Wallis' words should be seen as metaphorical. Again, are the IPCC and Al Gore basing their discussions on faith-based "science" or on actual findings from the real world? The answer to that question should determine who is really being "religious" regarding this issue.
D
Posted by: Don | October 18, 2007 10:23 AM
"Anom In Britian a court listed nine (9) scientific errors found in Gore’s film."
The errors found were minor. Scientists will always quibble about details. The major points are not in question by the vast majority of climatologists.
Call the movie propaganda if you must, but it still is the best introduction to the issue for a non-scientific audience that one can find right now.
D
Posted by: Don | October 18, 2007 10:29 AM
Dang it Don,
you beat me to the punch! Above post was mine.
Good comments about the GW "cult". Yes--just another way to avoid actually learning about the facts, and those who think it is a cult more than likely, at a rate of I'd guess about 90%, have no idea what it really is. All they know is it inconveniences them. And labelling it a cult excuses them from learning more.
I do, however, regret that Jim Wallis called Gore and "Environmental Evangelist". It's bad enough people dismiss GW because they dismiss Gore. Now he's added fuel to that fire by making GW seem like a religious idea, and now people are equating it with idolatry. so, even fewer people will take any time to actually learn anything about it.
Sigh--God really does care about His creation, about how we use it, and whether the way we use it is wisely and out of love and thankfulness to Him for His provision. He really does want us to care how our use of His provision affects others, and really does want us to change our ways when we learn that our actions hurt others. Forget about GW--let's just talk about how to be better stewards of the environment God gave us for His provision--how can we live sustainably without wasting His resources? It seems that just starting from that premise without even arguing about GW should be a place of common ground. anyone wish to meet me there?
Posted by: squeaky | October 18, 2007 10:38 AM
As much as I agree with Gore's views on global climate change and as much as I think he's a respectable guy, I think its a real mistake to make Gore our poster child on this issue. The reason is one of practical politics: Gore is associated with liberalism, the left and the Democratic Party. That limits the palatability of his message to the general public. He carries a huge amount of political baggage, especially due to his association with Clinton. I am a full-tilt Christian environmentalist who has been a full-time environmental professional for the past 28 years and very active with green Christian groups. I am absolutely convinced that we greens will make more headway if we choose spokespersons who break out of the mold of urban/liberal/Democrat. The left is already pretty much on board with the climate change issue. The people we need to convince are moderates and conservatives, and Gore can't reach them. I say back Gore out of the picture, and put more emphasis on guys like Rick Warren (who has stepped up and addressed the issue). Unfortunately, many liberals use the climate change issue just to grind their own ideological axes. The environmental message shouldn't be tied too closely to any particular political viewpoint.
Posted by: bill | October 18, 2007 10:48 AM
Bill,
Good points.
I think Gore may live as he pleases and advocate as he wishes. If Gore were to self-servingly advance policies that made exceptions for his own properties (like Ted Kennedy did with windmills), then he would be a hypocrite.
But you can be rich and support programs for the poor. You can have seven kids and oppose population growth. You can advocate adoption reform without ever having adopted yourself. You can be gay and oppose gay marriage. You can be on welfare and support cuts to welfare.
If there was a law that said Gore could only use so much energy, he would probably oblige, so he is not a hypocrite. His own lifestyle might prove that his ambitions are unachievable. After all, if the environmental evangelist won't downsize, the rest of us will be led kicking and screaming.
Wallis calling out Gore as an evangelist, and making an allusion to the 2000 election pretty much exemplifies why a lot of people are turned off by environmentalists.
Posted by: kevin s. | October 18, 2007 11:18 AM
Jim
I'm working with a coalition to make sure Congress sends the president a strong energy bill with meaningful changes for our environment and planet. This legislation would be a monumental step toward stopping global warming. Please go to http://www.energybill2007.us and sign the petition. This is our chance for real progress, don’t let Congress back down.
Congress finally has a chance to pass meaningful energy legislation. The bill they are about to pass includes the best fuel economy standards ever (35 mpg by 2020) and a renewable electricity standard (15% by 2020) that guarantees the growth of renewable, clean energy. But there is a chance these two key advances won’t make it through to the final bill.
Thanks for your support Jim...and all!
Posted by: Jonathan | October 18, 2007 12:19 PM
I don't post too often here, but I read the posts daily and really love the dialogue -- especially when it stays intelligent and civil. Thanks to those of you who post thoughtful replies rather than blind jabs -- you inspire me even if I don't always agree with your opinions.
I come from a conservative religious upbringing, and it has only been in the last, well, about seven years that I've tried to see both sides of many issues... and as I've done that, many of the "liberal" approaches have simply made more sense to me. Wow, what a shocker to realize that there really are very compelling reasons why a Christian would take up some of the issues that have been labeled as liberal.
What I don't understand is the attitudes behind the fierce resistance some folks have to Gore's message. I tend to believe the scientific consensus that Global Warming is a real threat and one that we need to take seriously. But okay, let's say for arguments' sake that the scientists and folks like Gore are wrong about the whole thing... what if we all try to consume less and waste less and use more efficient lightbulbs and drive hybrids, etc. etc.... and then find out down the road that GW isn't what we thought it was? so what? Isn't it a good idea to use less and conserve more anyway? What's the harm in putting these things into practice EVEN IF global warming is a myth? I really am asking -- what's the harm in caring for our earth? Why is this controversial at all?
Angie
Posted by: sixtyfeetunder | October 18, 2007 12:26 PM
The price is great to the poor and middle class in America for this Global warming scare.
Higher heating bills as Natural Gas is burned instead of cheap, and the cleanest it has ever been coal, to make electricity. Not to mention the war on Nuclear power that killed 10000 great jobs in my home town in Tennessee.
And now my grocier bill is going higher as corn is being used for fuel, not very effeciently, instead of food for us.
Yes I can now see that the progressives are all about helping the average Joe.
With friends like you who needs......
Posted by: roger | October 18, 2007 12:38 PM
"what if we all try to consume less and waste less and use more efficient lightbulbs and drive hybrids, etc. etc.... and then find out down the road that GW isn't what we thought it was? so what? "
For the record, I concede the existence of global warming. I don't think anybody here thinks it is a bad idea to use more efficient light-bulbs or drive a hybrid (if you can afford it). But I think we have seen several examples of what happens when we jump the gun on a solution from a policy persepctive.
The ethanol farce is going to cost us billions in both government subsidies and increased food costs. DDT bans cost millions of human lives. Fuel efficiency standards caused the SUV boom. The Kyoto treaty is presently costing it's adherents billions of dollars with no promise of discernible results.
Wallis isn't posting here because he wants us to use energy efficient light bulbs. The guy who wishes that Christians would see the world with Marxist eyes (yes he did say that) certainly favors an enormous governmental role in establishing environmental policy.
Posted by: kevin s. | October 18, 2007 1:33 PM
Forget about GW--let's just talk about how to be better stewards of the environment God gave us for His provision--how can we live sustainably without wasting His resources? It seems that just starting from that premise without even arguing about GW should be a place of common ground. anyone wish to meet me there?
Posted by: squeaky |
Squeaky that is tried here , where is the common ground . No touching the artic reserves ,no nuclear power, no real step by Congress to step up to the plate and research for renewable sources . No President willing to do it , and in the mean time envirnomentalists have no answers but allowing the poor to be hurt and those who are willing to do so defend faulty science AND bearified science in the same breath . When I read what someone quotes from the left as being proof of global warming , 2o foot water levels , then find its not true . Well , where is the middle ground ?
Posted by: Mick Sheldon | October 18, 2007 1:35 PM
Thanks Kevin for your reply. Good considerations. It's tough trying be open-minded in learning about the issues, and forming or re-examining opinions when there are so many factors at work. The deeper I try to dig, the more confusing it gets. I can see the temptation to just form an opinion and dig the ole' heels in with it, come hell or high water... no GW reference intended. ha.
Angie
Posted by: sixtyfeetunder | October 18, 2007 2:22 PM
You know, it really doesn't matter to me if it's a Wiccan lady with really weird hair and funny fingernails, who comes to knock on my door to tell me
I left the headlights on my car in the driveway. I'm just grateful to have my attention drawn to it.
Now I'm not aware global warming is necessarily mentioned in the Bible, but if I have to wait for Jerry Falwell to come back from the dead and knock on my door to tell me about my headlights, I've already got one very dead battery, irregardless of cars and batteries not being mentioned (to my knowledge) in the Bible.
Now I may not be a "bright," but I'm brighter than that.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | October 18, 2007 2:47 PM
I thought that Al might have gotten the award as a silent recongition for inventing the internet. Jim needs to get over the " lost " election. He sound like a disgrundled spouse in a divorce court, who is not going to get the right division of property.
Posted by: Dean Hunter | October 18, 2007 5:09 PM
I see that Mr Justice Barton, the British judge who thinks he's an expert on climate science, has made it into the US media. That says more about the US media (which ignores the vast majority of what is found newsworthy in Britain) than it does about the rightness or wrongness of his views.
None of the 9 points that he raised about Al Gore's film is central to understanding of anthropogenic climate change. On several of them, he is I think right to suggest that Gore exaggerates or oversimplifies; on others I think he misses the point or just doesn't understand how science works.
It should however be noted that Mr Justice Barton described the film as "broadly accurate" before making his criticisms.
He did not ban the film, he just required that schools in the relevant jurisdiction should issue "fresh guidance notes". Personally I have no problem with that. I want science taught as a living human enterprise, not as merely a series of facts, and I am sure there are science teachers in Kent who can take this as a starting point for helping kids understand the way that climate modelling is done. That way they can come to grips with the real science, not just something they read in a newspaper or on a blog.
Gore went beyond the essentially cautious scientific consensus represented by the IPCC reports in a few, mostly minor, respects. I don't think he should have done. But despite these small errors, and despite the film having too much Al Gore and not enough climatology in it for my liking, I think he did a good job.
The denial industry, on the other hand, really are in the propaganda business. Take a look, for example, at the list of errors in Bjorn Lomborg's books on the subject - see http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/ And he's one of the better-behaved of the deniers...
Mark
Posted by: mark | October 18, 2007 5:38 PM
First of all, Al Gore is a hypocrite on this issue. He has four houses that use much more energy than the national average and he is our example? Come on he is making money off of this global warming THEORY. We still do not know if man is actually a significant cause of climate change. This is pathetic that some people will believe anything a POLITICIAN spits at them. I don't think Al Gore is a bad person but he doesn't know what he is talking about. If he has been pushing this theory since the 70's than why is Mr. Bush's ranch more energy efficient than Mr. Gore's. Isn't that funny? We have a president, that has not done a very good job,and is the antithesis to Mr. Gore yet he is preserving our environment better than Mr. Peace Prize himself. Wake up people and do not believe everything that politicians tell you. Think for yourself! There are many inaccuracies in that propaganda movie and no one seems to care. As long as global warming sounds good and benefits someone's political agenda then people will follow blindly.
Let me clarify that I am not saying that we are not causing global warming, but we do not know if we are or not. There are three reasons that this is ridiculous. First of all this is a THEORY that has not been sufficiently proven and should still be debated and not accepted as truth. Second of all, Mr. Gore is not following his own plan to save the environment, as I already stated. I call that hypocitical. Thirdly, his documentary has many inaccuracies in it that no one in the mainstream seems to be pointing out. Think for yourself! Do not blindly believe what a liberal or conservative talk show host or TV personality tells you. Research the facts for yourself. We must start relying on ourselves and not politicians and TV networks to tell us what to believe.
Posted by: Russell | October 18, 2007 6:41 PM
On the comment about Greenland. Eric the Red, about a millenium ago, "named the land Greenland, saying that people would be eager to go there if it had a good name." (from The Saga of Eric the Red) It was no more, in fact even less, green then as it is now. The name was simply a marketing ploy.
Al Gore is being picketed as he travels by people who believe we need to act against global warming. Why? His ties to special interests and his craving for meat keep him from telling the truth. A UN study demonstrated that animal-based agriculture was one of the major contributors to global warming, even bigger than the whole transportation sector. But you won't find anything about this in any of the material he produces. He's trying to hide the facts.
There are major things we could do about global warming that Gore refuses to advocate. We could change our diets. Governmentally, we could end subsidies for animal-related agriculture (principally grain raised to feed livestock).
So while Gore may be part of the solution in some respects, he is also very much part of the problem.
Posted by: Bill Samuel | October 18, 2007 7:19 PM
Al Gore, you, me - everybody, we are all part of the problem.
You can't avoid responsibility by pushing it off on someone else, because that someone else is all of us.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | October 18, 2007 7:30 PM
Mark: "I see that Mr Justice Barton, the British judge who thinks he's an expert on climate science, has made it into the US media. That says more about the US media (which ignores the vast majority of what is found newsworthy in Britain) than it does about the rightness or wrongness of his views.
None of the 9 points that he raised about Al Gore's film is central to understanding of anthropogenic climate change. On several of them, he is I think right to suggest that Gore exaggerates or oversimplifies; on others I think he misses the point or just doesn't understand how science works.
It should however be noted that Mr Justice Barton described the film as "broadly accurate" before making his criticisms."
Mark, your comments are well-taken. But (I take it you live in the UK) you must not understand the average American. To register and discuss that Barton said "broadly accurate" before he listed criticisms would require complex comments that go beyond a 10 second sound bite. Way too boring for most adult Americans, who have the attention span of a 2-month old collie puppy.
It is well-nigh impossible in the United States to have an adult conversation about most serious subjects. Witness the performance of some on this blog, who reduce everything to black and white and either/or and at times make Rush Limbaugh look positively reflective.
As a rule, Americans tend to hate ambivalence, complexity, and shades of gray, for that requires hard thinking and an appreciation that in human affairs good is often mixed with bad. Instead, Americans prefer to operate like our president does: "I make decisions in my gut." As does a 3-toed sloth.
Of course the Apostle Paul wrote long ago about evildoers who are governed by their stomachs.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 18, 2007 7:55 PM
that last comment was mine
Posted by: carl copas | October 18, 2007 7:57 PM
I don't think it's fair at all to denigrate Americans as having the attention span of puppies; that implies elitism and disenchantment with democracy. I would warn that even the elite are as impatient with what they're not interested in, too, or personally inconvenient.
It's more accurate to say that there won't be a lot of attention paid to information that's troubling and has intimations for personal responsibility, regardless of whether you're Joe Sixpack or Joe Lieberman, if there's any possibility it can be ignored without serious consequence. Few leaders, whether in politics, business or religion can be successfully told the truth when it's not what they want to hear - shooting the messenger has a long historical tradition among elitists, too, even predating cowboys, back to Biblical times.
I was going to say at one point that I thought it was counter-productive to call Gore an evangelist, but I'm rethinking that. It only seemed untoward because Jim Wallis is a religious figure himself, while Gore is not, at least, not as I've thought of him. It might well be that he's engaging in a kind of prophetic function, however, in a secular anology to an old testament kind of way, warning of doom to come. He's certainly as controversial as those old prophets were - they weren't liked much and often disparaged - and anyone putting a damper on irresponsible partying ever since has been accused of jeremiads.
With this kind of vehemence against Gore, my contrary nature is just suspicious and cynical enough of the prevailing powers to suspect that there might be something worth looking further into in what he's prophesying.
The ladies - daughters of the American Revolution all, no doubt - doth protest too much.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | October 18, 2007 8:19 PM
A scientist I am not. However, as a student of history and the Bible, I have a hard time heaping such congratulations on Mr. Gore in biblical terms. "Evangelist" -- does it not have it's root in "good news"? Global warming and impending world-wide cataclysm as a result of such seem alarmist and without strong biblical foundation. Regardless of one's eschatology, it seems difficult to see the apocolypse and impending judgment of God accomplished through the slow process of "global warming". The "evangel" or "good news" of God is that there is a Savior. The motivation of the gospel is a restored relationship with God--not escape from eternal damnation (as certain as that truth may be).
I am certain, as stewards of this earth, that Christians should be conservative and responsible in the use of it as to leave it better than we found it for future generations. I am not anti-conservation or efficiency--both very noble ideals. However, I cannot make a "Jesus" connection with the current popular movement concerning global warming (in either direction). I do not believe that this issue needs to be "lumped" in with a broadening evangelical concern.
Let the scientists hash out their arguments, let the natural cycles of the earth continue, and let evangelicals consume ourselves with our biblical mandate for good stewardship, love for fellow man, and most importantly, the "good news" of Jesus Christ.
Posted by: J. Everett Cross | October 18, 2007 9:52 PM
Would it were that love of fellow man were a universal Christian attitude, for in practice it is not - which is contrary to Jesus' commandments for those who are truly His.
Or maybe that "I just love you to death!" remark has more bite than you thought!
Posted by: N.M. Rod | October 19, 2007 12:18 AM
If global warming and peace have no connection, why is the U.S. Defense Department worried about it? I think because they know when the availability of resources are shrinking, it will be the military who will be sent in to solve it.
Also, I am deeply insulted by the statement that a liberal cannot be a Christian. To think that whoever said that has the correct opinions that are the standard for being a true Christian makes me wonder what part of the Bible that thinking came from.
Posted by: Paul Wheeler | October 19, 2007 7:41 AM
Posted by: squeaky |
Forget about GW--let's just talk about how to be better stewards of the environment God gave us for His provision--how can we live sustainably without wasting His resources? It seems that just starting from that premise without even arguing about GW should be a place of common ground. anyone wish to meet me there?
SQUEAKY
You and I have talked about this - we agree that the earth is warming ever so slightly. I have heard that it might climb as much as half a degree in the next century. But - why is it climbing? I believe that there is more evidence that it is cyclical, that this has happened before.
Being good stewards - not a problem. I have contributed to the purchase of wetlands so that wildlife can have a place to live. Yes some was purchased to provide a safe place for them to multiply so that as they (the ducks) fly south there will always be more to hunt in the future. It is the sport I look forward to preserving. Now just so some don't get our undies in a bundle. This would not be needed it the Mexican Gov't did not allow their people to use small canons filled with pieces of metal and wipe out a whole flock one lake at a time. But I do not hear the enviromentalists screaming about that - only those who enjoy hunting here in the US.
I have provided funds to restock lakes in MN so that game fishing will be there for my children and their children. But the native americans in northern MN will spear thousands in the spring when they are spauning and then throw them in a dump to rot because they have speared thousands more than needed for them to eat. But they do it because of a treaty that gives them to right to spear fish. I don't mind them spearing fish but can we be a little more friendly with the 'great spirit' so that we allow the fish to multiply and only spear what we can eat?
I have long did my part for the enviroment - now how is doing what the Enviromentalist Evangelist Al Gore going to make the world a better place? I would like to have an SUV - I could if I wanted to. But I understand that I need to drive something more 'gas friendly'. I would like to hire private jets to take me places - but even if I could I wouldn't. I would like to learn how to fly but I would purchase something more 'gas friendly' than the gas hog he is currently buzzing around in.
There is comon ground for you and I but can we get Al on the same page with us?
I want to be an EE so I could have the same chances for a lifestyle like Al.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | October 19, 2007 10:28 PM
Private Jets,
Mod this has been covered to death. But Al by and large rarely uses them if he uses them at all. Can we please stop spreading that myth.
p
Posted by: payshun | October 20, 2007 12:35 PM
Posted by: payshun | October 20, 2007 12:35 PM
It's on tape and not just one. I personally don't care if he rides on them or not. Just don't talk to me about my 'Carbon Credits' when he spends more in one trip than I will in a decade.
Goose and Gander - but then again - Gore is the Enviromental Evangelists of our time.
Thanks be to Gore!
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | October 20, 2007 1:24 PM
Wallis calling out Gore as an evangelist, and making an allusion to the 2000 election pretty much exemplifies why a lot of people are turned off by environmentalists. Posted by: kevin s. |
Yeah to the extent that "evangelists" are like you, Kevin S, Wallis really insulted Gore with the label of "evangelist".
Posted by: Anonymous | October 20, 2007 4:43 PM
"It is well-nigh impossible in the United States to have an adult conversation about most serious subjects. Witness the performance of some on this blog"
Duly witnessed, Carl. I blame academia.
For the record, the IPCC report itself was distilled into sound bites, so that it could be disseminated and consumed worldwide. 99% of what is written on this blog does not rise above the level of soundbite either. I have yet to see Wallis write anything that isn't a soundbite.
So let us eschew the soundbites, and discuss policy. I'll go first. I think the first step is extricating the billions of dollars we have tied to ethanol-based solutions. Ethanol is immensely popular with many senators in that it allows them to fortify their environmental credentials without alienating the farmers. Best of both worlds, unless you are the rest of America.
Care to offer your observations, or do you find cavorting with the canine set to be beneath your aesthetic. I have to go, I've been distracted by a flashy thing.
Posted by: kevin s. | October 20, 2007 9:02 PM
Posted by: | October 20, 2007 4:43 PM
Wallis really insulted Gore with the label of "evangelist".
No - Wallis did not insult Gore. He insulted all the evangelists out there that are working each and everyday to spread the Good News that God loves them and Christ died for their sins. It is as much a slap in the face of Billy Graham as it is to my neighbor two block away that is out there week after week sharing the Gospel. Wallis has cheapened and diminished the wrod/term 'evangalist' for many of us that believe in the work like a Graham is doing.
So many have challenged me to take Gore out of the issue and consentrate on what is the message. Wallis has proved that with out 'Gore' in the issue - there really is no message to be heard because the spokes-person is really more important than the message.
'P' - still looking at the issue only because you have been a better spokes-person - thank you.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | October 20, 2007 11:30 PM
"Wallis has proved that with out 'Gore' in the issue - there really is no message to be heard because the spokes-person is really more important than the message."
Wallis has proved no such thing. Wallis is simply looking at the present reality--the fact that Gore is the one speaking out where others have not. You know as well as anyone that it could have been someone else. The fact that Gore has been the one speaking out doesn't establish the issue--the science, that is, the evidence from the natural world, establishes the issue. Wallis knows that, and, Moderatelad, I believe you do too. So why don't you stop your posturing?
Peace,
Posted by: Don | October 21, 2007 12:33 PM
Posted by: Don | October 21, 2007 12:33 PM
No - Wallis has cannonized Gore so we have the patron saint of the enviroment.
Oh - and Wallis has put it out there that Gore should have been president - NOT!
Reading Wallis is a lot like reading Stalin - if you say it long and loud enough - it has to be true.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | October 21, 2007 1:36 PM
"No - Wallis has cannonized Gore so we have the patron saint of the enviroment."
I suppose; if it makes you feel good to believe that this is what Rev. Wallis is doing here, then go ahead and believe it. I don't think most people who read this would come away with that notion.
"Oh - and Wallis has put it out there that Gore should have been president - NOT!"
Oh, so you believe that the blatantly partisan and disgustingly activist decision of the Supreme Court was justified? Do you think it was OK for the Court to undermine the Constitutional provison for resolving disputed presidential elections (which are clearly spelled out)? So "conservatives" should support what the Court did just because it got them the president they wanted?
Look, I voted for GW Bush in 2000, but the Supreme Court had no business interfering in the election process. They should have refused to get involved. The Constitution then would have placed the responsibiilty for deciding the election into the hands of the House of Representatives, who would have had to decide which slate of Florida electors to accept--once all the election haggling in Florida was finished. And then they would have been answerable to the votors for whatever decision they made. Considering that Gore was ahead in the popular vote, that might have forced the Representatives to think twice before automatically crowning Bush.
I wonder if Rev. Wallis is thinking along these lines?
Later,
Posted by: Don | October 22, 2007 7:31 AM
Posted by: Don | October 22, 2007 7:31 AM
Supreme Court had no business interfering
The US Supreme Court stepped in to correct the mistake the FL Supreme Court made. Had the FL Court allowed the system to opperate the way the law stated - there would not have been a problem.
Voting is one of the more 'partisan' acts that we do as a Republic. Once the votes are counted and people are in place - then we need to be more bi-partisan.
Do you remember the interview with that little old lady that accused the voting judges of not allowing her to correct her ballot in FL that was run by CNN-ABC-CBS-NBC for the first 24 hours after the polls closed? If you do - you will understand the fraud and bias of the 'Big Four' and why I believe they caused a lot of the problems in the 2000 vote. That Wallis will talk about the 'enviroment' and bring up this issue just shows that he is really not interested in bring us together but looking for someone to pass the mantel to him and the nations religious spokesperson.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | October 22, 2007 8:34 AM
Kevin S.,
Thanks for getting beyond rhetoric into policy. I will accept your proposal. I would like to see those billions spent on more viable alternatives--energy ideas that might actually work.
So I add to your proposal this: We need to conserve energy. We need to do this by consuming less and wasting less, and we need to do this by demanding our car manufacturers give us better gas mileage. I don't care who makes those demands--whether it be consumers (which I prefer) or the government. But conserving energy has made a difference in the past, and it can now, and in fact can provide us some buffer and much needed time to develop a viable, or a mix of viable, solutions. It probably won't be one thing, but many---wind in states that are windy, solar in states that are sunny, nuclear, biodiesel (from what I can tell, it has far fewer drawbacks than ethanol, and can be used from waste), greater efficiency, people living more sustainably, etc...
Posted by: squeaky | October 22, 2007 10:10 AM
"The US Supreme Court stepped in to correct the mistake the FL Supreme Court made."
According to the Constitution, that should have been the H of R's job.
So you are saying it was OK for the Supreme Court to circumvent the Constitution just because the process it outlines would have been messy, or maybe would have taken a while (heaven forbid--even past Jan 20, perhaps?), or, worse yet, would have required accountability from our elected Representatives?
D
Posted by: Don | October 22, 2007 11:48 AM
Actually Squeaky,
The number one thing contributing to climate change is the food we eat and the agro-business that supports it. We (America) must eat less red meat and do more to curtail the amount of corn and other foods we make to feed our cows. If we did that alone there would be significant change in our weather, health and the growth of our nation.
p
Posted by: payshun | October 22, 2007 11:51 AM
Posted by: Don | October 22, 2007 11:48 AM
According to the Constitution, that should have been the H of R's job.
I believe that the H of R's gets involved when the Electoral College fails to put forth a name for the office of Pres.
The FL Supreme Court had no right to step in during the recount process. The state of FL was handling it according to state law. The Court was 'changing horses mid-stream' and changing the election laws that were on the books. That is why the US Supreme Court had to step in to the mess.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 22, 2007 12:11 PM
Wow. I've never read this blog before. Have to say, I'm a little surprised. Looks like a forum where political conservatives jump in for a little aggressive expression against politically more liberal folks. I've read very little thoughtful debate and a whole lot of ugly, sarcastic and cutting remarks- a free-for-all for those who just want to argue with someone. Like the first meeting of a junior high debate club. Very ineffective and kind of obnoxious. Not sure how I would distinguish Christians by anything I've read. Hey, good luck solving any problems.....
Remember, Believers, "The tongue has the power of life and death," and a man (or woman) of knowledge uses words with restraint." Remember a little humility. (I did detect some of that in posts by Don and Angie)
Posted by: mlwm | October 22, 2007 12:58 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?