---

One of our country’s greatest problems is our dependence on foreign oil. And despite what many think, global warming may not be the most harmful outcome of our oil habit. When people’s lives become dependent on a substance, we call that addiction. The addictive potential of a substance does not necessarily correlate to the “high” it delivers. A more accurate way to judge addictive potential is to see how willing someone is to go without the substance, or how painful life becomes when it is suddenly withdrawn.

When we are addicted to something, we tend to start denying or overlooking things. We fail to question its side effects. We are willing to lower our standards. No one wants a drug dealer for a neighbor—unless, of course, you’re an addict.

I’m a physician, and I’m an evangelical Christian, so I’m interested in the moral implications of our fossil fuel dependence as well as its health effects. What does devoting so much of our lives to obtaining and delivering oil do to us as a country and as individuals? The U.S. now sends more than two hundred billion dollars a year to distant lands in exchange for oil. That means that every man, woman, and child in America is sending about $700 a year to foreign countries just to feed our oil habit. One of those recipients officially forbids religious freedom. Its constitution mandates that the earth is flat. It declares democracy a capital crime. And this country is a major, not a minor, supplier of U.S. oil.

Ours is not the first generation to be morally blinded by building a lifestyle based upon energy from foreign shores. Slavery was the importation of cheap energy without regard to its moral cost. States that initially forbid slave energy, such as Georgia, eventually sanctioned it out of envy of the material wealth of their neighbors.

Upon meeting Harriet Beecher Stowe, the author of Uncle Tom’s Cabin, President Lincoln was purported to have said that it was nice to meet the woman who started the Civil War. Stowe’s father was among the evangelical ministers who preached the cause of abolition. Other preachers penned eloquent pro-slavery sermons. The church, like the country, found itself split by the slavery controversy. How could church leaders come to such different conclusions while reading the same Bible? Can we draw lessons from this defining moment in our history, or are we doomed to repeat it?

The Golden Rule (do unto others as you wish others to do to you) allows us to see the moral side of the environmental issue. God and history teach us that we must love those least able to defend themselves, which includes the unborn generations of tomorrow.

I am not a political leader, but I do vigorously lobby for one special interest group. This group is neither liberal nor conservative. Its members can neither vote nor advocate. Their budget is zero, but their numbers are gigantic. I am speaking of “The Little Children of the World,” described in my favorite Sunday school song.

Who will speak for these children, and generations yet unborn? Who will deal with the moral implications of our energy habit? Whoever it is, irrespective of party affiliation, most assuredly deserves our votes, and our prayers.

---