Is Environmentalism a Religion? A British Court Says YES!

Animism, naturalistic pantheism, Gaia theory — there are various belief systems that deify the natural world. But should a fervent belief in the need to fight climate change be given the same legal protection as an actual religion? A London judge said yes, ruling this week that environmentalism should carry the same legal weight as religion under Britain's employment laws.

The case involved Tim Nicholson, 42, who was laid off last year from his job as head of sustainability at Grainger Plc, Britain's largest residential-property company. Nicholson contended he was laid off because his views on the environment were not shared by Grainger executives, and he sued the company for unfair dismissal under Britain's six-year-old Religion and Belief Regulations, which make it unlawful to discriminate against a person on the grounds of their religious or philosophical beliefs.

www.time.com...

With EU giants such as Lord Monckton, and the Obama administration's globalist thinkers like Carol Browner and State counsel Koh leading the way, it won't be long before AGW erects its own shrines with readings from the Books of Gore and Soros.

jw

reply to post by jdub297


because you know...it being declared a religion by the EU means its going to be a state sponsored religion.


but anyways...i think this isnt about making it a religion, its about preventing morons from hiring/firing people based on their views about the environment. its protecting the views in the same way religious views are protected.

[edit on 7-11-2009 by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest]

Originally posted by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest
but anyways...i think this isnt about making it a religion, its about preventing morons from hiring/firing people based on their views about the environment.

That makes too much sense, shame on you for posting this on ATS.

haha i humbly apologize

yes. environmentalism is a religion.

in Environmentology:
polar bears are (collectively) the pope.
melting glaciers are the hell
and heaven is run solely on solar and geothermal power.



[edit on 7-11-2009 by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest]

reply to post by jdub297


Yawn. Lets pay attention to what we read here folks. This issue as the article states is about:

discriminate against a person on the grounds of their religious or philosophical beliefs.

The articvle goes on to quote:

But in a landmark ruling on Nov. 3, Justice Michael Burton found that "a belief in man-made climate change, and the alleged resulting moral imperatives, is capable, if genuinely held, of being a philosophical belief for the purpose of [the 2003 law]."

This is about freedom of THOUGHT not religion. To assert such is poor form and sloppy hype.

So this is just an example of jdub's tendency to aggressively attack anything that deals with the environment or anything that is not 'right wing'. Facts aside. I would urge a bit of rationality, which once again seems to be lacking.

The book of Gore and Soros indeed...

Originally posted by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest
reply to post by jdub297

 

but anyways...i think this isnt about making it a religion, its about preventing morons from hiring/firing people based on their views about the environment. its protecting the views in the same way religious views are protected.

I don't know about where you live and work, but I don't see anything wrong with firing morons for their environmental "views."

Such are NOT protected in my country. I will not discriminate based on gender, ethnicity, origin, race or religion. I am not required to tolerate idiots in my employ.

jw

reply to post by Animal

And once again, you confuse what you would LIKE, with what is lawful.

The UK granted legal protection to "philosophical beliefs" because, being a secular state, they could not come out and specifically advocate for or against any religion. They had already adopted in effect the "Human Rights Act" and other EU anti-harassment restrictions on upsetting behavior.
(the law was created primarily in response to sexual orientation "banter, jokes and harassment)

In the U.S., "environmentalist" has no more protected status than "birdwatcher" or "recycler."

In ALL "at will employment" states, you can be fired for any reason and for no reason; just not the "wrong" reason.

jw

reply to post by jdub297


ok. fire someone for being against the war. or for it.
hell, fire them for believing global warming is happening.
see if you dont get sued.
and see if the court sides with you.

reply to post by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest


I already did. They didn't. They would lose if they tried in Indiana or Texas, both "at will" States.

"Philosophical beliefs" are not protected classes in the USA. Read the Constitution.

Moreover, the Constitution and 14th amendment apply to government, not private persons. I can discriminate FOR or AGAINSDT any gender, political party, race, sexual persuasion, or religion in my private affairs.

(It's just like the ATS "Ignore" button!)

Do you think every notion is "protected?"

jw

lol, the UK is not a secular state.

We have established churches and have done for hundreds of years. Bishops even sit in the House of Lords. Schools are generally required to give some form of morning worship - which was entirely christian until a couple dozen or so years back. But it has now been reduced to 'thought for the day' type stuff in many instances.

Also, Lord Monckton is a climate science denier. A non-scientist ex-journalist puzzle-creator who used to be one of Thatcher's minions. Not sure he'll be erecting shrines to Gore anytime soon.

Mr Justice Michael Burton said that "a belief in man-made climate change ... is capable, if genuinely held, of being a philosophical belief for the purpose of the 2003 Religion and Belief Regulations".

Torygraph



[edit on 7-11-2009 by melatonin]

reply to post by jdub297


So if you employed an good worker, you'd consider firing them because of their belief in man made global warming ? A belief which doesn't affect their employment ?

Sheesh. Hardly surprising your economy is going down the plughole.

This is a ridiculous attenuation of logic.

Hardly worth the effort to discuss....

reply to

post by jdub297

 

The case involved Tim Nicholson, 42, who was laid off last year from his job as head of sustainability at Grainger Plc, Britain's largest residential-property company. Nicholson contended he was laid off because his views on the environment were not shared by Grainger executives, and he sued the company for unfair dismissal under Britain's six-year-old Religion and Belief Regulations, which make it unlawful to discriminate against a person on the grounds of their religious or philosophical beliefs.

'Tim' must have expressed his views in some manner.
Now if he kept his philosophical view to himself, then there would not have been a dismissal...imho...
'Tim' did not abide by a 'don't ask don't tell' social interaction.

the defense team had better get back into court, and claim his disruption of the business functioning was cause for dismissl, not that he was an environmental zealot.

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by Animal

 

And once again, you confuse what you would LIKE, with what is lawful.

No the article was pretty clear that this IS the law in England.

Think it's a bit more complicated than something like 'don't ask don't tell'. He was employed by Grainger as their Head of Sustainability, and his skills are in environmental policy.

Grainger had good written policies both on the environment and corporate social responsibility, Mr Nicholson told the hearing – but there was a "mismatch" between the policies and the way in which the firm was managed. When he tried to get it to act in a more environmentally responsible way, he said, senior company executives obstructed him.

In a written statement submitted to the hearing, and then in oral evidence, Mr Nicholson listed a series of examples where, he said, Grainger's practices were very different from its proclaimed environmental stance. One of his jobs, he said, was to try to establish a carbon management strategy for the company – which had been listed as a target in the annual report and accounts. But when he tried to work out the firm's carbon footprint to implement it, senior staff from the human resources and financial departments refused him the necessary data.

Grainger's green policies would sometimes be shown to potential clients as part of a company package, he said, but the firm's executives would turn up at the meetings in "some of the most highly polluting cars on the road".

linky

When he kicked up a fuss about these issues, which were part of his job description I would think, they probably decided to remove him. He also states how one executive had people fly from London to Ireland to bring him the blackberry he left at home...

In sum, I assume he took his position seriously given his strong personal beliefs on the issue. The executives likely just wanted some puppet to front their supposed environmental credentials (i.e., corporate pseudogreening)


[edit on 7-11-2009 by melatonin]

reply to post by Ulala

So if you employed an good worker, you'd consider firing them because of their belief in man made global warming ? A belief which doesn't affect their employment ?

Where would you get such an idea?

You ignore the fact that I would have to consider hiring them first.

So, if I disagree with someone's "philosophical belief" that animals should be able to sue humans (for example), why would I want to hire them in the first place?

jw

reply to post by Animal


I don't live in England.

It is not the law of MY country.

jw

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by Animal

 

I don't live in England.

It is not the law of MY country.

jw

Back on topic:

From animism to naturalistic pantheism, there are various belief systems that deify the natural world. But should a fervent belief in the need to fight climate change be given the same legal protection as an actual religion? A London judge said yes, ruling this week that environmentalism should carry the same legal weight as religion under Britain's employment laws.

Your country's laws are irrelevant in this discussion. In fact I would go so far as to say your entire argument in this thread is irrelevant and nothing more than just another example of your crusade against anything that deals with protecting the environment, human well being, or anything not 'right wing'.

Just playing games on behalf of your right-wing, corporate masters.

[edit on 7-11-2009 by Animal]

reply to post by Animal
I don't write these stories. I just relate them.

If all you and others can do is attack the messenger, then attack the messenger:

Is Environmentalism a Religion? A British Court Says YES!
www.time.com...

Too bad "Time" is such a liberal publication, or you could attack a conservative "messenger."

(Isn't Time one of the mags that trumpeted "Global Cooling" a while back?)


Deny ignorance.

jw

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by Animal

 

I don't write these stories. I just relate them.

If all you and others can do is attack the messenger, then attack the messenger:

Is Environmentalism a Religion? A British Court Says YES!
www.time.com...

Too bad "Time" is such a liberal publication, or you could attack a conservative "messenger."

(Isn't Time one of the mags that trumpeted "Global Cooling" a while back?)


Deny ignorance.

jw

I attack any messenger that spreads lies and discord mate.

I have moved beyond the crippling dualistic view of the world and have accepted a much more complex view. Whats more I have moved beyond the paralyzing nature of such a diverse perspective and have also adopted my own set of personal beliefs with which I use to navigate this world.

Included in this belief system of mine is the realization that there is little difference between 'liberal' and 'conservative' when you are talking about politicians, media gate keepers, or anyone else who is currently in power. They have ALL (mostly all) been corrupted.

I in no attacked the messenger. What I have attacked in this thread is nothing more than a blatant and simple attempt to smear a belief system. Specifically your attempt to mock and discredit the idea that adopting an environmental philosophy is somehow bad or corrupt. Such a sad view of the world mate. I urge you to take a second look at what is around you. Your stance and action here reeks of ignorance.