As much as I may think Al Gore would make a great president, and should have been president after the 2000 election, it’s probably too late for his chance to take the reins of the nation.  There is just too much bad blood from the 2000 election, too much crap (much of it lies) brought up, too much animosity from “moderate” Democrats who incorrectly see him as being too Liberal.  Gore has certainly done well for himself since losing the 2000 election.  Granted, Current TV isn’t actually buring up the cable airwaves, but with books, lectures, and the documetnary An Inconvenient Truth raking in millions he’s doine more than most Democrats since leaving office — even Bill Clinton.  I he could somehow make it through the primary as a stronger candidate than he did in 2000 I would definately vote for him, and I think many in the nationa would, as well.  Don’t forget, he did win the popular vote by a good margin.

It looks like the brouhaha that is The Path to 9/11 just won’t quit.  Now it’s coming to light that several of the actors were unhappy with the blatant inaccuracies and hired their own researchers to fix them on the spot.  Here’s a question:  if you knew the film was a pack of lies, why be in it?  Granted, Hollywood rarely makes historically accurate films, but the innaccuracies coming out concerning this “drama” are so blatantly biased it goes way beyond the usual Hollywood bullshit.  Are these actors so hard up for work they had to do the film?  According to the IMDb the films stars, among others, Harvey Keitel, Stephen Root, Donnie Wahlberg, Patricia Heaton, Amy Madigan, William Sadler, and Penny Johnson Jerald (making her second appearance as Condoleeza Rice in a 9/11 film).  Not A-list actors, for sure, but none of them are hurting for work.  I get Partricia Heaton; she’s an outspoken Conservative and supporter of President Bush.  Amy Madigan is a suprise since a majority of her work and her actions outside of Hollywood paint her has a major liberal.  The same goes for Penny Johnson Jerald (one of my favorite actresses).  Are they really that hard up for work?

Their is a movement afoot among some Evangelical Christians to embrace the idea that God doesn’t mind if Christians are rich and shouldn’t feel bad because they pursue wealth.  This, of course, has some religious leaders in an uproar.  They see it as going against all that Jesus’ life and ministry stood for.  At the heart of this question are a few verses in the bible:

“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:3, NIV)

“Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.” (Luke 6:20, NIV)

Notice that little change in wordage there? So, if you’re an Evangelical Christian who believes in the inerrant word of Bible, which verse is correct?  Well, I think most theologians would agree the “in spirit” is implied in the wording from Luke, as well.  I don’t believe one has to be poor in order to feel the presence of the Lord; however, the Bible also has some specific things to say about those who are rich and ignore the poor or those who are not charitable:

“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

“He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” (Matthew 25:31-46, NIV)

So does this mean the rich are going away to eternal punishment?  Well, no.  I think the answer the question lies in another verse:

As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead. (James 2:26,NIV)

This is the verse the rich should be thinking about.  Amassing wealth, but doing nothing for those less fortunate than you goes against the very foundations of the Christian faith — of many faiths for that matter.  So, I’m not saying that you can’t create as much wealth as you want, but for Christ’s sake don’t be so greedy; give a little.  If the Bible is to be taken as fact, then you’ll be glad you did.