Winter is finally upon us as Monday morning greeted Madison with a light snow cover with staying power and temperatures that can finally be described as frigid without risking hyperbole.

If these items alone don’t convince you that we have entered the coldest and darkest of the seasons, then witness another seasonal indication: cars and trucks warming up in their driveways as their owners make last preparations before commuting to work (or class for the lucky few with parking privileges).

Madison may not witness this last indication if mayor Sue Bauman and the city have their way. Before we all enjoyed the long Thanksgiving break and our last weekend of bare lawns, Bauman floated an idea for an ordinance to ban any vehicle in Madison from idling for longer than five minutes.

And why not? If president Bush insists (along with 99 U.S. senators) on scrapping the Kyoto treaty, there is little left for Madison activists to do but to start reducing hydrocarbon emissions in our own driveways.

Madison can hardly concern itself with such matters as sexual assault and robbery when an issue like global warming poses such an apocalyptic threat to all of humanity. It is not difficult to justify spending our police resources ticketing chronic idlers when their exhaust has been described by Al Gore as a greater threat to our nation than nuclear weapons.

Just as I was running out of sarcastic thoughts on the idling-vehicle ban, an anti-sport-utility-vehicle advertising campaign caught my eye in the papers. Reverend Jim Ball, who clearly shares the apocalyptic vision of the anti-idling crowd, asks consumers, “What would Jesus drive?”

His ads ask drivers to consider how their choice to drive gas-guzzling SUVs causes environmental damage and the presumed immorality of such decisions.

Pondering Bauman’s latest ban and Ball’s drive for conversion, the philosophy of the progressive politician suddenly became clear. The progressive agenda is, above all, an answer to the larger question that has teens all over Utah wearing “WWJD” bracelets. Before tackling any important issue, the progressive must ask, “What would Jesus do?”

Would Jesus take advantage of drink specials? Would Jesus serve to underagers? Would Jesus drink at all? The answer to the last question is clearly “Yes, He would drink,” or at least He would condone the consumption of alcohol. He changed the water to wine at Cana for the merriment of wedding guests, but what does that say about his stance on drink specials and underagers?

If Jesus were bouncing, he couldn’t give a wink and a nod to underagers, what with the ninth commandment and all.

A house party, on the other hand, seems to be just the kind of place Jesus would drink. No carding at the door keeps the patrons honest, and the beer is almost as cost effective as his water-to-wine transformation. As for the underagers, that law is Cesar’s, not the Lord’s.

After answering “WWJD?,” the progressives’ motivation to ban drink specials becomes clear: It is the most effective way to get students out of the bars and into house parties where Jesus would want them.

Fine, so what would Jesus smoke? Would Jesus smoke in a bar?

The Bible contains no reference of which I know where Jesus smoked or interacted with smokers, making any answers to these questions a bit more speculative. An immature analyst might suggest Camel Lights, since the camel was a popular mode of transportation in the early Holy Land, and Jesus is said to be a “light to the world.”

Amusing as this clever suggestion may be, a true progressive knows Jesus expects you to respect your body and keep healthy, so cigarettes are out.

Not in bar, not in a car. Not in a house, not with a mouse. He will not smoke them here or there, He will not smoke them anywhere.

But progressives also must deal with political reality, and Jesus would most likely approve of their baby-step approach toward the banning of cigarettes. Ban smoking in Brats and The State today, in Bullfeathers and Paul’s tomorrow, and in your residence when the political tide is right.

Jerry Falwell and the Christian Coalition’s political influence has scared many voters who believe their true intentions are to introduce Judeo-Christian values and teachings into our secular governmental institutions.

Progressives have avoided the religious rhetoric but carry on the cause of a state-imposed morality in seemingly trivial matters. Although you won’t hear progressives talk of Christ’s take on the issues of the day, you can bet the vote your progressive politician cast for a ban of one sort or another can best be explained by asking them, “What would Jesus do?”

This question allows one to predict the actions of a progressive, but developing policy based on a trendy bracelet acronym is as flawed on the left as it is on the right.

“What would Jesus do?” is a legitimate question for a Christian to ask of herself when confronted with a tough moral choice. I am sure Jews, Muslims and even atheists could think of a similar question, the answer to which would help guide them through a moral quandary.

But such questions are meant to help the individual cope with the blessings of free will. They are not meant to create laws for the society surrounding the individual.

Adam and Eve would have been better off if they had obeyed God’s will and refused to eat the forbidden fruit. But this alone does not justify any Garden of Eden municipal authority to enforce a forbidden-fruit-eating ban, the same way particulate pollution and hydrocarbon emissions do not justify Madison’s desire to ban your idling car.

A.J. Hughes ([email protected]) is a software developer and UW graduate.