From: kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie)
Subject: Re: Al Gore's religious beliefs
Organization: Rowan College of New Jersey
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 22:11:46 GMT


Somebody named Texe Marrs has written about Al Gore's religious beliefs; we
have been discussing his commentary.

Several features of Mr Marrs's writing are usually associated with cranks:

 1) his choice of arguments: he seems fond of guilt by association, mentioning
    that Senator Gore "is a pal of the Dalai Lama", is well-liked by New-Agers
    at conservation seminars, and other Heinous Crimes

 2) his hysterical style: Senator Gore isn't "wrong", he's a blaspheming
    pagan who's "a fervent, committed New Age believer!"; Sen Gore's book is
    not `poorly argued' or `alarmist', it's "one of the most evil and
    blasphemous books I've ever read."

 3) his ability to see demons everywhere: they're in the Skull & Bones
    Society, they're in the environmental movement, they're in the vaporous
    phrase "a thousand points of light"

 4) his conspiracy theories: he refers to the Illuminati, who (as always)
    have a Secret Plot to Ruin The World and Control Our Minds

Those things suggest to me that Mr Marrs is not worth listening to.

Then there is a more specific charge.  According to Mr Marrs:

> The Senator especially has harsh words to say about fundamentalists and
> other christians who believe wholly in the Bible.  [...] They are blights on
> the environment. To believe in Bible prophecy is unforgivable, says Gore.

It has been argued that, since Jesus is returning soon, we do not need to take
care of the earth.  (I vaguely remember James Watt saying something along
these lines, but there is apparently some dispute.  Whether he in particular
said it is not actually relevant to my point, and I really should have left
him out of the discussion.  On the other hand, it's always good to be
disabused of false ideas, and I'm gratified that others have corrected my
unfair comments about Mr Watt.)

The argument that we need not care for an earth which will soon be repaired
anyway has been criticised by several people; me, for instance.  Those who
made such criticism have been accused of being lousy Christians.  (Not by
anyone on Christia, thankfully.)  It was claimed that we were disparaging
belief in Jesus' return.  That is not correct: I _believe_ in Jesus' return.
I, and others, were disparaging the idea that such belief allows us to damage
the world we live on.

I have not read either Senator Gore's book or Mr Marrs's full review.  But
what I have seen suggests that Mr Marrs is making the same incorrect
accusation that I have had leveled at me.  I also find it unlikely that a
Senator from Tennessee (the middle of the Bible Belt) would go out of his way
to offend a large voting block in his home state.

By itself, none of these things would bias me one way or another.  But in
concert, they suggest that Mr Marrs is just another fruitcake.  His repetition
of an accusation which has been incorrect in every instance when I've heard
it, the hysterical style he uses to make his claim, his apparent paranoia
about secretive groups, and his attempts to use guilt by association are all
hallmarks of the crank.


Kerry Stephenson asks:

> BTW, isn't refuting what he said about Gore by reference to James Watt some
> kind of logical fallacy?

Only if one intends a logical argument.

I am not saying "Texe Marrs comments are wrong", because I haven't read the
books in question.  I am saying "Based on what I have seen, I do not trust
Texe Marrs to accurately describe Senator Gore's religious beliefs."

Everybody must use heuristics to sift information; nobody can read every book
published.  In some cases, we read the first chapter and stop; in others, we
don't get that far.  We make decisions based on the book jackets, the blurbs
on the cover, the history of the writer, whatever bits we look at by skimming,
and so forth.

So far, what's been presented from Texe Marrs is very small -- a single page
among the 20 books he's written.  But almost every bit of it reeked of mania;
it had "crank" written all over it.  Coupled with other things I have dug up
about Mr Marrs from our library (he and Constance Cumbey provide several bad
examples for _Witch Hunt_, by Bob & Gretchen Passantino), I have determined
that Mr Marrs is not likely to write anything worth my time to read.

In particular, anything he says which cannot be verified from a separate
source is probably wrong -- and if I'm going to use other sources to check up
on him, then I may as well just use those other sources directly and skip the
middleman.


Maybe Texe Marrs is right about everything, but it doesn't seem likely.  If
I listened intently to everyone who MIGHT be right, I'd never get anything
done -- and if I believed them all, I'd be a rather confused individual.
Maybe the JWs are right; maybe Herbert Armstrong was right; maybe Rev Moon
is right.  To have me listen, they first have to make a case that they are
trustworty and levelheaded.  The excerpts from Mr Marrs have done exactly
the opposite.


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu
"I respect reason, and you have not shown any." -- Jim Meritt
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU