And God looked out over what He had created and said...

"What a waste, they're just going to fuck it up."

The Common Man admits to finding Al Gore's documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, compelling. Gore presents a frightening case for what will become of this world as the polar ice melts rapidly and the temperature rises. Since his Oscar win, right-leaning blowhards with talk shows have essentially given up trying to discredit Gore's message and instead focused on attacking the (admittedly not ideal) messenger, digging through Gore's electric bill and flight history to attempt to discredit him as a hypocrit. Whatever. Gore's movie is essentially a personal narrative that synthesizes the work of others into an accessible and convenient form.

Anyway, one of the most interesting aspects of the film is the idea that environmentalism and combatting global warming is a moral issue. That unduly hurting God's creation and drastically altering the planet that the next generation will inherit is wrong, perhaps even sinful. The Common Man, in particular, thinks that this is an excellent point and that the scope of Christian morality needs to be extended beyond issues of life, reproduction, and family. Morality is not checked at the door when you leave your home.

Not everyone agrees with The Common Man. In fact, according to CNN, there is trouble brewing in the "evangelical community" (whatever that truly means) over whether global warming and environmentalism are important points to raise in lobbying efforts. Recently, a letter signed by 25 prominent evangelicals, including James Dobson and Gary Bauer, was sent to the National Association of Evangelicals (an organization of 45,000 churches of various Protestant denominations), asking it to rein in its Washington policy director, Rev. Richard Cizik, who has apparently been pushing hard for anti-warming agenda.

The letter observes "that Cizik and others are using the global warming controversy to shift the emphasis away from the great moral issues of our time, notably the sanctity of human life, the integrity of marriage and the teaching of sexual abstinence and morality to our children," and claims that evidence of global warming is not conclusive. Moreover, it suggests (quite ironically, given the "intelligent design" debate) that churches should let scientists settle the question. Finally, one of the signatories, Tony Perkins of The Family Research Council, has said that "global warming was part of a leftist agenda that threatened evangelical unity."

"We're not going to allow third parties to divide evangelicals, and I think that is what is happening in part with the global warming issue," Perkins said.

Of course, there are a lot of ridiculous statements here. First and foremost, that global warming is not real, or that evidence is not conclusive. Look, there are people who still believe that the Earth is flat and that the moon landing was faked. But it's still established science that the earth is round and that the moon is not made of cheese (and that golf balls travel really, really far out there). The overwhelming majority of scientific evidence suggests that global warming is real and that it is (at least partially) driven by man. Second, that somehow science and religion need to occupy separate spheres. While I'm sure Galileo is happy to hear about this, it ignores the fact that religious people can read good science and be convinced and that scientists can be religious (and can use that religion to inform their science).

Third and fourth, that broadening the focus of the "evangelical community"'s political influence will make it less effective and will "divide evangelicals." The Common Man believes that the narrow focus of this certain cadre of evangelical leaders will ultimately make them obsolete as Americans begin to see connections between various issues in the world today and their faith. Poverty, torture, nuclear proliferation, pollution. These are all moral issues that The Common Man believes must be addressed as such. Indeed, chuches and organizations of churches would be wise to broaden the issues that they address in order to be more effective influencing policy in a Democratically controled Congress. Who knows? Gaining traction on one issue may lead to the access and influence necessary to move forward on others. If Christianity's mission truly is to persuade others that Christ was our savior and to spread his message, it would do well to avoid insularity and to branch out, avoiding an "us vs. them" mentality and looking for ways to connect with others. This is an ideal way to do that (although The Common Man is not sure how comfortable he is with Tony Perkins, James Dobson, and Gary Bauer haveing more influence. In retrospect, forget that The Common Man has written anything in this space.).