|
What Would Jesus Drive?
By Nicole Chardenet, Bristol
It's not often I can stand wholeheartedly behind a conservative Christian political campaign, so I want to be the first to say I'm all in favor of the new "What Would Jesus Drive?" campaign. Organized by the Evangelical Environmental Network and in partnership with the National Council of Churches and the Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life, their goal is to encourage and persuade the Big Three automakers to produce more environmentally friendly motor vehicles, and for auto owners to encourage them by demanding such cars. You can write to WWJDrive c/o EEN, 10 East Lancaster Ave., Wynnewood, PA 19096; phone 202-554-1955; or visit <www.whatwouldjesusdrive.org>.
I'm very happy to see Christians finally take an interest in the environment. Conservative Christians have struck me as being rather hostile to the very concept, which seems odd considering that many of them believe the Bible made humans the stewards of the Earth. And since none of them argue whether God made it, you'd think they'd feel a vested interest in taking better care of it.
Instead, we've had anti-environmentalists like former Secretary of the Interior James Watt, who brought "rape the earth" to new lows in the 1980s, and George "Screw the Caribou" Bush Jr., who can always be counted on to put oil profits ahead of the environment—both conservative Christians, and they're hardly the only ones. Others have stared suspiciously at environmentalists, regarding them as tree-hugging liberal hippie pagans. Some of them are. But I'm not talking about Earth First or the "We're Against Everything" kiddie corps protesting at the WTO summits; I'm talking about the sane and level-headed management of our resources, because regardless of your political or religious stripe, we all have to live here.
SUVs and minivans are under attack from more than one quarter. In addition to the more-fuel-efficient-than-thou campaign, Ariana Huffington is running an ad suggesting the owners are helping to fund terrorism. And the head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Dr. Jeffrey Runge, warns that SUVs are at a greater rollover risk in an accident because they're higher off the ground than regular cars. They're also at a greater risk of causing auto accidents, if you've ever watched how some of these people drive. But that's just my personal opinion as I curse SUV and minivan owners who insist on driving up my tailpipe, cutting me off in traffic, and blocking my field of vision.
The gas guzzlers' critics all have good points. It's a long-established fact that SUVs and minivans contribute to environmental pollution, and it's been a sore spot for the rest of the free world that—just before we demanded worldwide support for fighting a terrorist attack on New York and Washington—George Bush as usual catered to the oil interests rather than the environment by making us the sole country refusing to sign the Kyoto Treaty. The evidence pointing to global warming mounts every day. The automakers recognize the environmental damage they cause, but have in effect said they're going to continue selling them as long as Americans keep buying them, and will only work to make them more environmentally friendly when the government makes them.
And who can deny how our conspicuous consumption makes us more dependent on foreign countries who hate our guts, have declared a religious crusade against Jews and Christians, and whose leading producer, Saudi Arabia, provided 75% of the suicide terrorists who died on September 11, and which continues to hemorrhage terrorists the way the Boston Archdiocese hemorrhages money? Long before Huffington's commercial, which I haven't even seen, I've believed that driving SUVs is not only harmful to the environment, but downright unpatriotic. And now you can add that they're harmful to children. Can anyone support something that puts children in danger? You don't dare. Everyone knows if someone says something is a danger to children, you'd better not support it or we'll all know you hate children!!!
This is one Christian crusade George Bush will never join, because it would offend the oil lobby too greatly, and their holy profits are more sacred. Nor will he want to offend the Saudis, as it would be politically indelicate to fight terrorism at its source. Much easier it is to declare a war on Saddam Hussein (who has not attacked the U.S.), since he actually knows where Saddam is, and he can't find Osama bin Laden (for Bush doesn't want to be seen failing at anything). Plus, Saddam has an official country Bush can focus on—unlike al Qaeda, which doesn't.
What would Jesus drive? I don't know, I suspect he'd walk. Or in Washington, DC it shouldn't be too hard to find a jackass. I'm sure an SUV might look tempting, given how many disciples he had. Still, I find it hard to believe he would support something that ruined his father's creation, endangered human lives and gave money to people who wanted to destroy Christians and Jews. I don't drive a gas guzzler now (I drive a Ford Escort), but I will be going to a smaller, more fuel-efficient car next time around—maybe even a hybrid, if the price comes down and the technology becomes more refined. Because I do care about the environment more than oil profits, and I sure as hell don't want to fund countries that take our money and hand it to the terrorist set.
|
|
