Being that this is my first post, I will attempt to appease those who actually appreciate a literary device known as the paragraph. I can't tell you how many blogs I've read that just ramble on without a break in their thoughts for pages on end. Therefore, I will attempt to write in a somewhat orderly fashion as to not compel my 5th grade English teacher to quit her day job. I apologize in advance for any long, single sentences that should be broken up into 4, and the only preemptive explanation for this that I have is that I admire the way the Greeks wrote and am exploring a way to convert the ancient art form into English. Or I am just to lazy to read this over before posting. I like the former.

Going back to the topic of this post, I felt the profound need to address this extremist environmentalist issue and explore its rationale. On campus, I have been repeatedly asked "if [i] "have a minute for the environment" by obvious hippies who smell a bit too much like nature. At times I have wanted to say something creative like, "NO". Usually, however, fear of the "natural funk" wafting towards me at an alarming rate grips my heart, so I veer to the other side of the sidewalk and pretend to be vigorously chatting away on my "nature killing" phone. Now as a Christian, and an animal lover (both to eat and to pet), I am here as a steward of God's creation. I do support caring for the environment. The following is where I diverge from the cult of "Mother earth is dying and its our fault because of our evil desire to live comfortably".

The primary force behind this movement is the wonderful moneymaker the majority of the public affectionately refers to as Global Warming. Excuse me as I collect myself and do a few deep breathing exercises. All right, I feel that I can continue calmly. My first problem with this theory is that it is precisely that; a theory. Now the implication of something being classified as a theory is that as such, it has yet to be proved. Much like the theory of evolution, the theory of bigfoot, and so on. This is not to say that there is no data that might appear to lend itself to the idea, but as far as global warming goes (as well as the other two, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms), there are not only vast amounts of inconclusive data, but there are also evidences that point to the complete antithesis. Not only that, but global warming is far from a widely accepted scientific belief. What better group to ask about this than Greenpeace? Greenpeace conducted a recent survey on climatologists, and actually (thank goodness) released the findings. They found that 47% of climatologists don't think that global warming is imminent, 36% said it is possible, and a measly 13% said that it was probable. Please take a moment and reflect on the significance of this. So am I supposed to give up my truck to save the planet when it "could possibly help, some of us think, maybe..."?

I love the fact that things such as cow flatulence and volcanoes erupting actually produce more air pollution that humans could ever dream of, and yet I am pressured to think that I am a greater plague on this earth than Canada Geese in Fort Collins! (Sorry, local analogy). I'll give a suggestion to those of you who continue to be concerned about this dark haze that sometimes occurs around a large city. Are you ready? All right, here it is: drive away! The smog will be gone once you have spent 15 minutes worth of gas past the city limits. Or, to better benefit the earth, and to shed some pounds, ride your bike there.

Well, that's all that I have for this post. I know one thing, if I were flora or fauna, and global warming was happening, I'd be darned glad to get rid of horrible uncharacteristically cold winters such as this where I am twice as likely to die. In the words of a great bumper sticker I once saw, on a pickup I might add, "Stop Global Whining".

 A question I have been often faced with is whether or not as a Christian, one should be concerned with politics. This can get awfully hairy, although in a purely one directional way. It seems that many Christians have a very hard time with anyone who attempts to take a stance on a political issue. Why is this?

I will attempt to think through some of the inevitable issues that are raised.

1) "God is bigger than the government, you should trust that His will be done".
I can see the point, as it is 100 percent true. The question is whether trusting that God's will be done and being an active participant in life are mutually exclusive. I believe that they are not. A great teacher of mine once said, "God who ordains the end also ordains the MEANS to that end". There is a reason we were not created as mindless robots, we have the ability and capacity to stand up for our faith and if necessary take a political stand against things that threaten what we hold dear.

2) "You should spend more time in prayer".
Yes, I have actually heard this one many times. Prayer is absolutely vital, and any Christian would benefit from as much time in prayer as possible. HOWEVER, as any person schooled in logic will tell you, this commits a fallacy of Argumentum ad Hominem. Basically, this means that you can't divert attention from the issue at hand to the person themselves. The debate is about the ISSUE and not the PERSON. Therefore, a person's prayer life in this instance is irrelevant to the argument. Aside from the rules of logic, the purpose of prayer is not to always just sit back and wait for God to "fix it". We are to stand for Christ, not to go hide in a proverbial hole somewhere. Prayer is vital to our stand, but it does not prohibit our mobilization into action.

3) "The church shouldn't pick sides".
I don't really care if the church embraces the Republican party or not. I DO however care that the church more often than not refuses to support those who are pro-life, and who support our freedom as Christians. Not picking sides does not mean not standing for anything. The separation of church and state was intended by our founding fathers to protect the CHURCH from the STATE and not the other way around. In those days it was unfathomable that it would be reversed the way it has been, and the church itself seems to be convinced of the current interpretation that Christianity has no place in politics. Our country was founded to give the citizens the ability to at least complain and at most abolish the government and restructure it if the government started to abuse its power and threaten the inalienable (God-given) rights from its citizens (which is happening now). So why don't Christians even try identify threats to and thus hold onto these rights?

Christianity is not a religion of pacifists. The triune God is not a pacifist in any way. We as Christians are to love, but did Jesus stop loving us when he cleared the temple in holy anger? I'm inclined to think not. I am not advocating being argumentative, rebellious, or an all around pain in the posterior for no good reason, but I do believe whole heartedly that the majority of the church needs to step up to the plate and make it abundantly clear where a Christian should stand on certain political issues that are obviously going against what the Bible teaches. It is legal, and is not a problem with "submitting to authority", as long as it is done in the spirit of loving correction.

Two of the greatest thinkers of our time and advocates of the power of Christians' influences on politics, Frances Schaeffer and Chuck Colson, have much to say about the issue. A couple of excerpts will give the idea:

Chuck Colson wrote, "During the past half century, Americans have had before them a clear and menacing contrast between the free world and two regimes of terror: Nazism and Communism. Whatever the failures of our own system, it was obvious to all but the willfully blind that a free-market system was immeasurably superior to the alternatives. Yet today we can no longer simply point to that stark contrast, and as a result we must formulate a positive defense of the principles that undergird a free society. We must articulate the biblical principles that support economic freedom and a sense of vocation".

Frances Shaeffer wrote, "In this respect, we must remember that although there are tremendous discrepancies between conservatives and liberals in the political arena, if they are both operating on a humanistic base there will really be no final difference between them. As Christians we must stand absolutely and totally opposed to the whole humanist system, whether it is controlled by conservative or liberal elements".

Christians have a voice, and to use it in the political arena is not being less spiritual, it is letting your faith extend to all areas of life, not just in a box placed in the designated "spiritual corner".

 In postmodern society, there is an imminent danger that threatens to arrest our development. I am referring to the prevelance of people who wish to prohibit the use of conversation as a means to attain a greater and more profound understanding of life. I call these people "impossible to talk to". More seriously, however, these people have usurped positions of power and authority in the government as well as in public schools and universities. Their influence is being felt anytime a thinking person who lives by the laws of logic and reason attempts to converse with this rapidly reproducing breed of human.

In everyday conversation, the ideal productive conversation would look a bit like this:

Person A: I believe that guns are not in and of themselves responsible for violence around the country.

Person B: Why do you think that? I believe that without guns, people would not be nearly as violent.

Person A: Think about it this way. Was there violence in the world before the invention of guns? Think about tens of thousands of people being sacrificed with sharp stones during the Aztec reign.

Person B: Well, I suppose so.

Person A: Do you think, then, that without stones the Aztecs would have changed their religion and stopped sacrificing people to their gods?

Person B: Probably not.

This conversation is progressing forward. Even if Person A ends up changing their opinion and conceding to Person B, the conversation is using what is called a logical progression of ideas. I like to call this linear reasoning.

This is more like what actually occurs in conversation:

1)

Person A: I believe that guns are not in and of themselves responsible for violence around the country.

Person B: You're stupid for thinking that. Of course they are.

[Person B stomps away exceedingly frustrated]

OR

2)

Person B: How could you believe that?

Person A: Let me put it this way. If people wanted to do harm to others, they would find a way. I believe individuals deserve a right to protect themselves.

Person B: You're an idiot. How could you ignore that violence is a massive epidemic in society that President Bush is ignoring?

Person A: What? That isn't what we were talking about.

[Person B folds arms, lets out a frustrated sigh, and stands there rolling their eyes. The person is, however ready to continue this circus act of a conversation]

Example number one can be considered "truncated reasoning", for when reasoning is required of Person B, a deep sense of "not knowing how to think" rises up from the depths of his empty reservoir for potential intellect, and a primal urge to end the conversation rears its ugly head. Name calling is a manifestation of this "cornered wild animal" feeling.

Example number two is an image of an individual attempting to have passionate opinions trump well thought out linear reasoning. In this attempt, the conversation becomes "circular", because Person B tries to bend the progression back towards the beginning statement. This time, however, it is just different enough to try and bait the hook to lure Person A away from the actual topic. This is a reaction to having virtually no desire to use the laws of logic to deduce ideas. If Person B were to use logic, then they would actually have accountability for the thoughts that they threw around a conversation (if it could even be called such).

The moral here is, for the benefit of all that is good and wise, be a linear rational thinker who ascribes to the profoundly significant laws of logic! If we do not, this country will be further solidified into one filled with intellectual and conversational chaos. (For those not familiar with a logical progression, it follows that America will end up like a less organized version of Dante's Inferno. Or France. Whichever image reveals itself to you more clearly.)