Wow, what a debate.  There is a certainly a healthy range of opinions on this Forum.

This seems to be a classic case of people being Republicans first and Christians second.  Who has taken the couple hours to see "An Inconvenient Truth"? 

Here's another article to consider for a contrary Christian viewpoint.  People should consider that one political party doesn't have a monopoly on morality.  Certainly on the issue of the environment the Democrats are more in line with respect for God's Creation than the Republicans and that's why the Republicans put out baseless propaganda like the articles posted earlier.


Is Christianity anti-Environmental?
by Rich Deem
Introduction

The charge has been made that Christianity is anti-environmental. In fact, there are those who blame the ecologic "crisis" on the "Judeo-Christian tradition."1 Much of the misinformation that Christianity is anti-environmental came from some widely publicized statements by professing Christians. For example, James Watt, who became U.S. Secretary of the Interior under Ronald Reagan in the early 1980s, in his article, "Ours Is the Earth,"2 and other articles, made it clear that he viewed the earth as "merely a temporary way station on the road to eternal life...The earth was put here by the Lord for His people to subdue and to use for profitable purposes on their way to the hereafter."3
God's involvement and pleasure in the earth and its creatures

However, none of these charges of anti-environmentalism stand up to scripture found in the Bible. The Bible begins with a description of the events of creation. God's personal involvement in the process is evident from the second verse, when God came to earth to personally direct its conversion to a world suitable for living creatures.4 One of the features of the creation account is God's pleasure at each step of the process. Six times God affirmed that the creation was good in His sight.5 The idea that man is free to destroy God's creation is at odds with God's obvious enjoyment of His creation taught in Genesis one.
The earth and everything in it belong to the Lord, not humans

Both Old and New Testament affirm, "The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it."6 According to God, "every animal of the forest is mine, and the cattle on a thousand hills. I know every bird in the mountains, and the creatures of the field are mine.7 I find it amazing that God personally knows every creature, not just every human.
God cares for and provides for the needs of His creatures

Not only does God own everything and know every creature, but He cares for and provides for the physical needs of His creatures. For example, Psalm 104 says that God provides the water from the mountains for "all the beasts of the field and the wild donkeys [to] quench their thirst."8 These waters provide for nesting places for birds, grass for cattle, and food for man. The psalm goes on to describe the "trees of the Lord" and the "cedars of Lebanon that He planted." Also described are the stork, wild goats, lions that "roar for their prey and seek their food from God", and the creatures of the sea, large and small, that exist "beyond number." After listing all these creatures, the psalm goes on to say that they all rely upon God to "give them their food at the proper time" and that "they are satisfied with good things." Psalm 104 indicates quite clearly that God cares for the earth and His creatures.9 Likewise, in the New Testament, Jesus affirmed that God loves His creatures and provides food for them.10
God gave humans dominion over the earth to care for it

At the creation of man, God commanded that humans in Genesis 1:28 take control over the earth and rule over the animals.11 Having dominion doesn't mean to pillage and plunder, but to take care of the earth and its creatures and resources. Immediately after creating Adam, God put him into the garden of Eden that He had planted and put him to work in "taking care" of the garden. The Hebrew verb translated "to take care" (shamar - Strong's number H8104) is also translated "preserve", "keep", "watch", "maintain", "defend", and "attend." The nature of man's dominion of the earth is clarified in Psalm 8, which says that man is to have dominion over all of God's works on the earth, including the birds, domesticated herds, and the wild beasts of the field, and the fish and other life of the sea.12 Protecting God's creation is not just the responsibility of secular organizations, but should be the responsibility of evangelical Christians, as well. According to the National Association of Evangelicals:

    Just as we show our love for the Savior by reaching out to the lost, we believe that we show our love for the Creator by caring for his creation. Because clean air, pure water, and adequate resources are crucial to public health and civic order, government has an obligation to protect its citizens from the effects of environmental degradation. This involves both the urgent need to relieve human suffering caused by bad environmental practice...13

God will judge those who destroy the earth

The Old Testament indicates that the animals and birds have perished because the people who live in the land are wicked.14 The Bible says that Jesus will return to earth to judge people for their sin. What most people don't realize is that part of this judgment is going to be executed against "those who destroy the earth."15 God cares very much for His creation and will judge those who have no regard for it.
Conclusion

The Bible declares God's pleasure in His creation and His care for all the created things on the earth - both plants and animals. God has given man the task of caring for and protecting His creation on the earth. The Bible says that those who destroy God's creation will be judged and destroyed themselves. Therefore, the Bible encourages wise stewardship of the earth, its resources, and its creatures. Many Christians have reacted against the environmental movement, probably because of the tendency by many environmentalists not only to protect the earth and its creatures, but to actually worship the creation instead of the Creator. This kind of misdirected loyalty by many environmentalists is clearly condemned in the Bible,16 since we are to worship God alone.17

As Christians, we should be doing everything Jesus commanded, including taking care of our families and all the resources He has given to us. Personally, our family recycles glass and plastic and we try not to waste energy (turn off lights, close doors, etc.). I am currently involved in a fight with Vulcan Materials, who want to tear down our local mountains in the San Gabriel Valley (Southern California). If you live in the San Gabriel Valley, please join us! I want my three boys to be able to enjoy nature the way God created it. I enjoy hiking in the wilderness and am saddened when I see litter, burned out areas, and other acts of carelessness by people. God is a God of order and beauty. Take a look at the description of heaven (Revelation 21). It will be great to be there someday - there is no pollution there.

The problem here is that so many are brainwashed into thinking that the Republican party is somehow the political party you should align yourself with for Christian values.  Too many are afraid to think for themselves, or believe thinking for themselves may lead them down the wrong path.  Recent events clearly show a corrupt Republican party, void of morals in their politics, that still has the unjustified and unwavering loyalty of too many Christians.  People want to believe there is a light side political party and a dark side political party, while the truth is split between each party and often held by neither or sometimes both.  So you have a bunch of lunatics dancing around like monkeys cheerleading when they hear words like liberal and conservative, Republican and Democrat, without having any interest in learning the facts and becoming educated.

When you start calling the mainstream media unreliable you are leading yourself into a tunnel of darkness with less and less light to find your way out.  Certainly the mainstream media has room for significant improvement, but if you suggest an alternative such as Fox News or Rush Limbaugh you have lied to yourself, and deep down you probably know it.

[Now, Roll Over!]

Now, Roll Over!

Wow!  Can you say "Defensive"?  Take a look back at what I asked and take a step back and look at your comments.  Think about what makes you jump to Bush's defense whenever his name comes up.

It is clear that deep down you're not happy with his decisions and feel the need to defend him because you see it as defending yourself since you voted for him and his Republican cronies and in a way you feel partially responsible for his actions.

Certainly it is noble to feel responsible, but I think it's obvious that very few people intended for what they got when voting for Bush.  Even though you may have misjudged Bush, Gore, and Kerry, it's not your fault that the President has led this country on rampage that has damaged the environment - which our kids will have to live in, exploded the deficit - which our kids will have to pay for, made us more dependant on big oil, left at-large for over four years the country's worst enemy - a 6ft tall terrorist dragging a dialysis machine from recording studio to recording studio, led us into a senseless and failing war in a country that posed little threat to us, increased the rate of poverty every year, appointed his unqualified friends into important positions leaving us all unsafe, put a political party of criminals in charge, and stalled the decrease in abortions seen in the years before Bush.  You ought to take some time to pray about where you stand and what is most important- then decide if you should continue to support the Republican party.

My original post about the Supreme Court Nomination was intended to gain some insight into why so many conservatives are coming out against Miers.  I personally feel I don't have enough info to make an informed decision, just as was the case with Roberts.  These appointees have revealed very little about their positions on anything . . . how does anyone have such a strong opinion?  If you trust Bush's judgement you ought to support the nominee, otherwise you might not.  I noticed so many conservative leaders have come out against Miers and I really don't know why.  If you trust him on Roberts, why not on Miers?  As a separate question . . . do you believe Bush when he says that he doesn't know Mier's stance on Roe v. Wade?

Do you support President Bush's nomination of Miers to the Supreme Court?  Why or why not?

Yea, don't get him started.  He'll tell you how the liberal media is lying about this whole thing.  You know those WMD sites that the administration was pointing at before the war - Al Gore actually went in and stole 'em to give to Bin Laden.  And Bin Laden is actually not off the hook, really the administration sent double as many people after than they did into Iraq so that they could smoke him out of his hole.  Now they have him in hiding and are secretly interrogating him for info - which is what tipped them off that the people trying to volunteer and help with Katrina might actually be with Al Qaeda.  Good thing they were there to protect those New Orleanians.

I think you're the first person I've met who has said that . . . but I've got to give you credit for being consistent.  What exactly did you say in Clinton's defense about the whole Lewinsky thing?

I support my country, but in a very different way.  I was against Clinton when he did bad stuff, and I'm against Bush now when he does even worse stuff much more often.  I think that's how democracy is successful, the citizens of the country have to discuss the issues, stand up and be heard, and vote their well-educated minds.  If we blindly support someone, whether it's because they belong to the Republican party - as seems to be the case with everyone I've spoken except you - or if it's just because this person is the President, we do what he says, we are ignoring our most critical responsibilities as citizens.  Blind support is what dictatorships like Saddam Hussein's are about, not what our founding fathers set up for this great nation.

You argued for him when the Republicans impeached him?  Now it seems like that's what you're alluding to by saying "I looked to his few good points, not the bad"  That may be true, and would be consistent with the way you're defending our current President after he's commited so many wrongs that make him such a horrible role model for our children.  However, I haven't come across many like you.

Lots of twisted arguments, but one caught my eye.  I'm curious how you supported Clinton.  I'd like to learn more about that.  Was it similarly to your blind support of Bush, i.e. in spite of his failures - you believe he does no wrong, or was it more like how I supported Clinton, because of his many great successes?

Believe it or not, God is not a Republican either.  I've spent many many hours watching the news, reading about, and researching my questions about Katrina and the many other government failures we've discussed.  That's why I've been able to respond with facts to each one of the myths you've proposed.  If you get all your news from a self proclaimed conservative source, do you see how you wouldn't be able to get a fair and balanced view of who's done what wrong.  This may be a stretch, but don't you think that the conservatives would be eager to blame the liberals rather than blame themselves?

And obviously liberals don't say "anything goes" or whatever other kinds of silly accussations you might make to help you categorize us as bad people who don't respect God.  For example, liberals don't support an elective war that kills tens of thousands of innocent people.  Liberals don't support the pollution and destruction of the Earth.  Liberals don't support letting corporate criminals off easy.  Liberals don't support bailing out failing megacorporations with taxpayer dollars.  Also, liberals believe that reducing the poverty rate is actually something that government should be interested in, while conservatives support an irresponsible tax cut to make the wealthy wealthier.

This President's "compassionate conservatism" is harming this country and has led to an unacceptable list of failures and hardly comprises a morally driven approach.

Isn't its tagline the "Conservative Journal of Record"?

Wow, you beat me there - no way am I going to subject myself to reading that long of an article from a source of Bush administration propaganda.  For one, you might refer to a reputable source of news; second, highlights and a link would be much more conducive to a healthy debate.  Blaming local residents is exactly the type of ridiculous political shift the blame approach that the Bush administration campaign led by Karl Rove is pushing.  Totally disgraceful.

Think about it in these terms . . . mantaining a levee; not something that a local resident can do.  Preparing for a disaster of this scale that has been expected for years requires Federal action.  The Bush budget cut funding for projects to prepare for this problem with the levees!  Also, who was most effected by this disaster?  The poor.  As Christians, the plight of the poor is something that should be of interest to all of us.  Another example of Bush's failures: Under the Bush administration the poverty rate has increased every year and under Clinton the poverty rate declined every year.

I can agree with you there.  There certainly is plenty of blame to go around.  I am not trying to make the case that the local officials are bunch of geniuses that did everything they should have.  However, it is clear from even the timeline you put up that the local officials met the standard mentioned earlier "asking for help; state of emergency"  And that just like in the aftermath of September 11th, the different agencies did an awful job of interacting with each other.  These problems have not been fixed, in fact they've been made worse.

I saw that in one city the Canadians actually arrived with aid before our own government!  In another case, numerous volunteers were trying to go into New Orleans to help and they were stopped so that the govt could check out if they were terrorists.  Even the local emergency response folks had to deal with the Feds cutting off their communication lines and confiscating their relief resources.

There certainly is a lot of blame to go around and we need to vote out the incompetent people who set up these awful 'improvements'.

It's case and point that you believe that local officials didn't declare a state of emergency and that Bush has been hesitant to blame local officials.  Once again you've fallen prey to this powerful political machine's propaganda.  Governor Blanco actually declared a state of emergency and requested troop assistance on Friday August 26th, well in advance of the hurricane - before it had even been upgraded to a Category 3.  Furthermore, on September 2nd, “Under the command of President Bush’s two senior political advisers, the White House rolled out a plan…to contain the political damage from the administration’s response to Hurricane Katrina.”  Karl Rove and President Bush systematically put into the minds of the public that the local officials were at fault - easy way to shift blame from him and take out some small time Democrats.  Very admirable.