Al Gore’s Vision of Global Salvation
Gore’s promotion of earth-centered religion |global indoctrination |socialist control
“Earth in the Balance is a brilliantly written, prophetic, even holy book, clearly pointing the way we need to change to assure the survival of our grandchildren. I pray it will have the dramatic impact it deserves — and must have for our collective salvation.” [1] M. Scott Peck, whose Road Less Traveled has become a freeway to global oneness.
“Al Gore’s celebrated new emphasis on ‘religious values’ is as phony as a three-dollar bill.… I truly believe Al Gore is the point man in a campaign to set a fatal trap for America’s churches and Christian charities.” Joseph Farah, editor of World Net Daily (July 16, 1999).
Vice President Gore’s “faith-friendly” campaign hides beliefs that oppose Christianity and his Baptist roots on every point. The evidence is in his 1992 book, Earth in the Balance – Ecology and the Human Spirit. It calls for a “panreligious perspective” that would conform Christianity to the UN vision of social and religious solidarity. The old biblical absolutes simply don’t fit the new global spirituality needed as a foundation for a new earth-centered ethic. Whether Buddhist, Baha’i, Native American, or “Christian” (the words sound Biblical but the cross is missing), each model for this blended spirituality must be:
Pantheistic: god is all, god is in everything.
Monistic: all are one, all are spiritually interconnected.
Evolving: always ready to adapt to the changing requirements of our globalist leaders and of the Total Quality Management process used to “re-invent government.”
Hard to believe? Then ponder the quotations below. In his book, Vice President Gore —
1. Attempts to diagnose the root problem of our Western culture:
“…we feel increasingly distant from our roots in the earth… we lost our feeling of connectedness to the rest of nature.” (page 1)
2. Finds answers in pantheistic connectedness:
“A modern prayer of the Onondaga tribe in upstate New York offers another beautiful expression of our essential connection to the earth: ‘O Great Spirit, whose breath gives life to the world and whose voice is heard in the soft breeze… make us wise so that we may understand what you have taught us…'” (page 259)
3. Seeks wisdom from the world’s earth-centered religions:
“The richness and diversity of our religious tradition throughout history is a spiritual resource long ignored by people of faith, who are often afraid to open their minds to teachings first offered outside their own system of belief. But the emergence of a civilization in which knowledge moves freely and almost instantaneously throughout the world has. . . spurred a renewed investigation of the wisdom distilled by all faiths. This panreligious perspective may prove especially important where our global civilization’s responsibility for the earth is concerned.” (pages 258-259)
4. Points to Native Americans as spiritual models:
“Native American religions, for instance, offer a rich tapestry of ideas about our relationship to the earth. One of the most moving and frequently quoted explanations was attributed to Chief Seattle in 1855. . . . [Chief Seattle’s words were actually written by Ted Perry for a 1971 environmental movie]: ‘Will you teach your children what we have taught our children? That the earth is our mother? . . . This we know: the earth does not belong to man, man belongs to the earth. All things are connected like the blood that unites us all.'” (page 259)
5. Validates ancient goddess worship – which, according to Al Gore, preceded our biblical heritage:
“The spiritual sense of our place in nature . . . can be traced to the origins of human civilization. A growing number of anthropologists and archeo-mythologists. . . argue that the prevailing ideology of belief in prehistoric Europe and much of the world was based on the worship of a single earth goddess, who was assumed to be the fount of all life and who radiated harmony among all living things. . . . [Ceremonial sites] seem to confirm the notion that a goddess religion was ubiquitous throughout much of the world until the antecedents of today’s religions–most of which still have a distinctly masculine orientation–swept out of India and the Near East, almost obliterating belief in the goddess. The last vestige of organized goddess worship was eliminated by Christianity . . . .
[I]t seems obvious that a better understanding of a religious heritage preceding our own by so many thousands of years could offer us new insights . . . .” (page 260)
6. Endorses feminist substitutes for God:
“One modern Hindu environmentalist, Dr. Karan Singh, regularly cites the ancient Hindu dictum: “The Earth is our mother, and we are all her children. . . . Guru Nanak [founder of Sikhism] said, ‘Air is the Vital Force, Water the Progenitor, the Vast Earth the Mother of All.’” (page 261)
7. Promotes a “new faith in the future” as essential to humanity, religion, and the sanctity of the planet:
“The religious ethic of stewardship is indeed harder to accept if one believes the world is in danger of being destroyed — by either God or humankind. This point was made by the Catholic theologian, Teilard de Chardin when he said, ‘The fate of mankind , as well as of religion, depends upon the emergence of a new faith in the future.’ Armed with such a faith, we might find it possible to resanctify the earth.” (page 263)
8. Blends Christianity with pantheism:
“My own faith is rooted in the unshakable belief in God as creator and sustainer, a deeply personal interpretation of and relationship with Christ, and an awareness of a constant and holy spiritual presence in all people, all life, and all things.” (page 265)
9. Demands total commitment to do whatever it takes to involve everyone in the earth-centered vision:
Would “every tactic and strategy” include compromise, lies, deception, and propaganda? Would “every law and institution” include unconstitutional laws and regulations? His quote below, together with his words and actions during the last few years, seem to indicate that any questionable means would be justified by the alarming end: to establish a global management system that would execute the UN plan for sustainable development 2 and build “consensus for this new organizing principle:”
“Adopting a central organizing principle – one agreed to voluntarily – means embarking on an all-out effort to use every policy and program, every law and institution, every treaty and alliance, every tactic and strategy, every plan and course of action – to use, in short, every means to halt the destruction of the environment . . . . Minor shifts in policy, moderate improvement in laws and regulations, rhetoric offered in lieu of genuine change—these are all forms of appeasement, designed to satisfy the public’s desire to believe that sacrifice, struggle and a wrenching transformation of society will not be necessary.” (page 274, Emphasis added)
10. Views the elimination of the combustion engine (in cars) as solution to a greater threat to our security than terrorism or war. Meanwhile, short distance battery operated cars will depend on the availability of other forms of energy — which must also be curtailed and controlled by the state:
“We now know that their cumulative impact on the global environment is posing a mortal threat to the security of every nation that is more deadly than that of any military enemy are ever again likely to confront. … I support new laws to mandate improvement in automobile fleet mileage, but much more is needed. … it ought to be possible to establish a coordinated global program to accomplish the strategic goal of completely eliminating the internal combustion engine over, say, a twenty-five-year period…. (page 325-326)
11. Suggests that the consensus process might help break down Christian opposition to government control over beliefs and values.
Politically conservative theologians and clergy have inherited a different agenda… The ‘atheistic communism’ against which they have properly inveighed for decades is, for them, only the most extreme manifestation of a statist impulse to divert precious resources… away form the mission of spiritual redemption and toward an idolatrous alternative: the search for salvation through a grand reordering of the material world. As a result, they are deeply suspicious of any effort to focus the moral attention on a crisis in the material word that might require as part of its remedy a new exercise of something resembling moral authority by the state. And the prospect of coordinated action by governments all over the world understandably heightens their fears and suspicions.
“Thus, with activists of both he left and the right resisting the inclusion of the environment on their list of concerns, the issue has not received the attention from religious leaders one might have expected. This is unfortunate, because the underlying concern is theologically consistent with the perspectives of both sides; equally important, the issue provides a rare opportunity for them to meet on common ground.
“As it happens, the idea of social justice is inextricably linked in the Scriptures with ecology.” (page 246-247)
12. Calls for a global environmental education plan that would change public consciousness and our understanding of reality:
“The fifth major goal of the Global Marshall Plan should be . . . to organize a worldwide education program to promote a more complete understanding of the crisis. In the process, we should actively search for ways to promote a new way of thinking about the current relationship between human civilization and the earth.” (page 355)
This “new way of thinking” is the primary goal of UNESCO’s worldwide program for “lifelong learning.” No document summarizes it better than Our Creative Diversity, the 1995 book-sized report from the UN Commission on Culture and Development. Published by UNESCO, it tells us that —
“The challenge to humanity is to adopt new ways of thinking, new ways of acting, new ways of organizing itself in society, in short, new ways of living.”3
The “new ways of thinking” about our relationship to the planet and to our communities are essential to solidarity and sustainable development. Each person must be assessed for their conformity to the new global values and spirituality. All must be trained and managed in groups and show readiness to compromise for the sake of unity and peace.4
These partnerships are central to the global management system. They would link health care and schools, schools and workplace, business and community, community and churches, churches and welfare. Each part of the massive network of partnerships would function on the basis of Total Quality Management and the consensus process. 5
Already, compliant churches are embracing the new management system which trades accountability to biblical truth for compliance with TQM guidelines.6 Most mainline denominations have also signed the U.S. Department of Education’s contract titled “Statement of Common Purpose of Religious Leaders.” It commits churches across the country to participate in the government program of “helping parents in the education of their children.” Churches learn from the state (or private partners to the state) how to “help parents” teach their children. Parents are then persuaded to participate in the consensus process – thinking collectively rather than individually — both in church groups and at home. In church as well as in our global culture, solidarity and compliance are in. Separateness and biblical accountability are out.
Al Gore unveiled the heart of his political vision and education program in 1991. “Seeing ourselves as separate is the central problem in our political thinking,”7 he announced at a Communitarian conference in Washington.
Five years later, at his 1997 White House Conference on Hate-Crimes, President Clinton would repeat the battle cry against cultural separation: “There would almost have to be some sort of club or organization at the school — because if you think about it, your parents are still pretty well separated. Most houses of worship are still fairly segregated. . . . We [the government?] have to find a disciplined, organized way out of this.”8
Perhaps our two “Baptist” leaders in the White House don’t know that the biblical God tells His people to separate from an immoral culture and other gods. Or perhaps they fear identifying with a practice so politically incorrect that Clinton now equates it with hate. One thing is certain, their political agenda and vision of oneness is totally incompatible with biblical truth.
As Joseph Farah said in his July editorial, “Al Gore has something else in mind.” Indeed, if he becomes president, he would not only continue to nurture the partnerships between church and state which began under President Clinton. Gore would also have to change the church to fit the state. The politically correct church would have to compromise, and its eternal truths would be conformed to the new global ideology. The God of the Bible would be replaced by the god of political expediency.
Our cultural problem is separation from God, not from nature. While God told us to care for the earth, He warned us against pagan religions. Contrary to the revised and idealized myths now flooding the western world,9 nature-worship brings violence and destruction, not peace and harmony.10
God alone shows the way to genuine harmony and oneness. To those who love Him, all of nature demonstrates the glory, wisdom, love and power of God – not because He is one with all forms of life, but because only an all-wise, all-powerful Creator could make such a beautiful planet.
He who created all life also knows best how to educate our children and build strong churches that honor Him. He has already shown us the steps. To the embarrassment of politically correct churches, these steps include spiritual separation. His people must be “in the world but not of the world,” ready to love and care for the needy, but yoked to Christ, not to government programs with their rules and restrictions. As He told us long ago:
“Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? . . . And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. . . .
Therefore ‘Come out from among them and be separate,” says the Lord. “Do not touch what is unclean, and I will receive you. I will be a Father to you, and you shall be My sons and daughters.” 11
A personal postscript:
Some readers have expressed their indignation at my personal Christian bias and “religious intolerance.” I appreciate their honesty as well as the right we still share in America to freely express our beliefs and opinions. While writing the above report, I was concerned that I might sound “intolerant” to those who didn’t share my beliefs. But like them, I must follow my convictions and conscience. So I wrote the article as a warning to everyone. It is not an attempt to impose my faith on anyone else, since I believe that Al Gore as well as all other Americans must be free to believe whatever they choose.
Aside from Al Gore’s political clout, the main reason for my concern over his earth-centered spirituality is the hypocrisy and deception behind his nice-sounding words. He still calls himself a Baptist and identifies himself as a practicing Christian. Therefore many still trust him and see him as a brother. That makes him all the more dangerous.
I’m sorry if I have offended you. But this is a public message, one not directed at any individual person. In a nation like ours, any position will offend a sizeable group of people. The consensus process, which is squeezing much of America into its new mold, rules out any expression that would violate someone’s comfort zone. As you can see, I don’t follow those rules. Nor do I believe that any true American should obey the consensus guidelines. Our nation was founded on individualism and freedom. Let’s not give those up in the name of tolerance or consensus.
I thank those of you who have taken time to respond to my article and share your disagreement. I appreciate you a lot — and all the more because you don’t share my beliefs.
Gratefully,
Berit
Endnotes:
1. Al Gore, Earth in the Balance; Ecology and the Human Spirit (Houghton Mifflin, 1992), backcover.
2. Sustainable development refers to the 3 E’s: Environment, Economy, and Equity. Not only does it use the environmental crisis to establish unthinkable regulations in order to control natural and human resources. It would also redistribute the world’s (mainly America’s) resources under the noble banner of worldwide social equity. For practical answers to the pseudo-scientific arguments used to validate global warming and other environmental crises, see Chapter 5 of Brave New Schools.
3. Our Creative Diversity (UNESCO, 1995), page 11.
4. See The UN Plan for Your Mental Health
5. See The UN Plan for Your Community.
6. I hope to write a report on this topic in the near future.
7. Corinne McLaughlin and Gordon Davidson, Spiritual Politics (New York: Ballantine Books, 1994), 147.
8. For more information on President Clinton’s White House Conference on Hate-Crimes (WHCHC), November 10, 1997, see Clinton’s War on Hate Bans Christian Values.
9. See Brave New Schools, chapter 4 and 5.
10. Documented by archeology and history. See warnings in Deuternonomy chapters 8, 9, 18, 28.
11. 2 Corinthians 6:14-18