Is Environmentalism a Religion? A British Court Says YES!

reply to post by Animal


If you'd READ instead of whine, you'd have more credibility.

The article clearly speaks for itself:

A London judge said yes, ruling this week that environmentalism should carry the same legal weight as religion under Britain's employment laws.

My political, environmental or philosophical views are not for you to assume.

I am a farmer, naturalist and environmentalist since before you were born.

I happen to believe that man is more able ( and more economically able) to shape his local environment than influence global climate.

Since we (as men) have limited resources, even when pooled into a government treasury, we are wiser to invest them where we realize the most and best results.

Nothing to do with liberal or conservative thought, really, as well all share them same resources, collective abilites and "locale" (to a certain degree).

If the British plaintiff really wanted to be effective, he would've "gamed the system" inside of Grainger, rather than make himself unwelcome.

Sometimes common sense prevails over "justice."

Many here just don't get it. (I thought for a while YOU did.)

jw

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by Animal

 

If you'd READ instead of whine, you'd have more credibility.

The article clearly speaks for itself:

A London judge said yes, ruling this week that environmentalism should carry the same legal weight as religion under Britain's employment laws.

I feel bad for ya mate. I am not whining, I am calling out your continued rants against anything that involves the notion of progress.

For example, I am still not sure why you are so upset with a British court making this decision or why you shared other than to defame those who are staunchly pro-environment.

My political, environmental or philosophical views are not for you to assume.

Comical coming from a person who is so very often seen on a community based forum and who is so very often posting about issues of 'political, environmental, and philosophical' issues.

I am a farmer, naturalist and environmentalist since before you were born.

Good for you mate.

I happen to believe that man is more able ( and more economically able) to shape his local environment than influence global climate.

Come on man, for an environmentalist who has been around for what 35+ years I would think you wouldn't make the biggest mistake of all anti-environmentalists and equate environment directly to climate change. I mean it is not so cut and dry as that now is it, mr. environmentalist and farmer of the land.

Since we (as men) have limited resources, even when pooled into a government treasury, we are wiser to invest them where we realize the most and best results.

What are you even saying here mate? It makes no sense.

Nothing to do with liberal or conservative thought, really, as well all share them same resources, collective abilites and "locale" (to a certain degree).

Nope. See Bioregionaisim, perhaps Thayers Life Place would be a good solid introduction. and then take a nice trip to Minnesota and then to new Mexico.

[edit on 8-11-2009 by Animal]

reply to post by melatonin

lol, the UK is not a secular state.

While there is no doubt that the British government has allowed religious participation in government, it does not endorse or support any particular faith or philosophy over another.

'Though you may feel the the UK is NOT secular, your government likes to pretend it is.

When the Brit G. J. Holyoake coined the term "secularism" he was referring to the common understanding that rational thought and philosophy could and should be separated from religious faith.

He was agnostic, but not antagonistic; which is about all you can ask.

Unfortunately, recent "enlightened" British courts have intruded into questions of faith and philosophy while pretending to remain rational.

Witness the recent battles in your courts over who a "Jew" is.

The subject case of the OP represents another "activist" judge's attempt to pretend to be a philospher instead of a jurist.

In this regard, note TIME's updated title for Eben Harrel of their London Bureau's OP article:

Environmentalism, the British Religion

www.time.com...

Deny ignorance.

jw

It's pretty simple, j - the UK is not a secular state. We have established religion and bishops given power in the government process. It's been that way for hundreds of years.

It does favour one religion over others. Only the Church of England has the right to place 26 Bishops in the upper house as 'Lords Spiritual'. The CoE is recognised as an official state church.

And the time article is as deceptive as your posts. You could say that this judge has given the philosophical belief in environmentalism equal status to a religion in discriminatory law, but not that the philosophical belief is a religion. There's a distinction that is clear enough.

It's like saying that because women have been given the same legal employment rights as men, they have now been defined as men. Patently ridiculous.

reply to post by melatonin
The mere presence of the ordained among your elected officials does not make the political body religious, just as the presence of atheists does not make the body Wiccan.

Though each country that makes up the UK has a long tradition of Christianity that pre-dates the UK itself, in practice all have relatively low levels of religious observance and today are secular societies.

en.wikipedia.org...

As for the TIME article, it only draws my attention because of the globalist views of Carol Browner and Harold Koh in the current US Administration.

I neither endorse nor criticize what your government does to its own citizens. We all generally get what we deserve from our elected officials.

I see the subject opinion as an opening to give the
US government the ability to make "environmentalist" a protected class under our Constitutional jurisprudence. Although our Constitution is written, it is subject to interpretation by State and Federal judges. Our legislative bodies can bestow "protected" status as well.

The OP article provides an example or blueprint of what may occur here.

The London Bureau of TIME is responsible for any mischaracterizations you may attribute to the title its editors assign to their articles.

jw

lol, j, the UK is not a secular state. Yes, we are largely not very religious as a people. Interesting, non? Same goes for many of the Scandinavian states who also have established state churches.

It isn't just the time article, you outline your position here:

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.

As you now know, we are not actually a secular state, but that's largely by-the-by. Secondly, you try to make out that the only reason we give legal protection to 'philosophical beliefs' is due to the state's need to be seen to not be advocating for/against any religion (and so I assume that's why he just said environmentalism was just a phil belief rather than religion). It's nothing of the sort.

There are already cases using the same 2003 religion and belief regulations that have focused on the religion issue. For example, a registrar initially won a case allowing them to refuse to marry lesbian and gay couple due to her christianity (lost on appeal). Other cases include a muslim teacher refused the right to wear full veil in the classroom and a christian school pupil to wear a 'purity' ring in school against school regulations.

And the judge in this Grainger case was clearly able to make the distinction between religious belief and philosophical belief, as is clearly made in the 2003 law.

You can certainly say that the judge has treated this dude's environmentalism like a religion, but he at no point suggested it was a religion. To suggest otherwise is just pure sophistry.

reply to post by melatonin

You can certainly say that the judge has treated this dude's environmentalism like a religion, but he at no point suggested it was a religion. To suggest otherwise is just pure sophistry.

Mr. Harrell of TIME's London Bureau and his editors published the characterizations and opinions expressed in the article.

I do not endorse TIME's use of sophism, but I've seen it in many British media where the title is only tangentially related to the substance of the underlying story (if at all).

I also noticed that the title of the story has evolved since initial publication.

Is that common in British publishing? Do they gauge readership, then "fine-tune" the lead-in to build readership/viewership? (I've seen this especially in the more outrageous stories, such as those about paranormal, the NHS, and politically-charged topics.)

Goes with the territory, I guess.

Still, the substance does bother me as I see the opportunity for similar application in the US. Where do you draw the line? At some point it becomes relativism rather than jurisprudence or "rule of law."

jw

Well, j, I've never been a fan of media representations of much that goes on in this world.

All you had to do was apply a bit of your own nous to see the article was playing games. The headline in both its forms were not true to the actual words of the judge in the case (a trivia aside: did you know he was the same judge that suggested Gore's film was political and partisan?).

Anyway, catch ya around. Up is down world always works best in small doses.

reply to post by melatonin
The article wasn't really playing games. It reflects a mindset that has distracted people for years away from the real problems of, and solutions for, our environmental disasters.

Your reference to "media" brings to mind a book by Michael Crichton from 2004, "State of Fear."

Mr. Crichton used the story to illustrate how unshakeable faith can lead to disaster. He used the same line of thought for a speech he gave in 2003 (broadcast by NPR, I recall) to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, California.

The speech, "Environmentalism As Religion," helped confirm for me that people were being drawn unreasonably to the AGW myth and its pitiful consequences.

He eloquently describes precisely, and presciently, the sad state of affairs we find ourselves in today on matters of the environment, AGW, and government/corporate deceit and overreaching.
www.michaelcrichton.net...

That, in turn, brings to mind another "media" player who is equally devastating in his critiques of "hype" passed off as science.

Nobel Laureate Kary Mullis (in chemistry, of all things!) published a collection of essays in 1998, "Dancing Naked in the Mind Field," that took apart the conventional wisdom on many subjects, including the "science" of global warming. One simple essay on a complex subject sparked my interest in the AGW mythos.

Although we can dismiss the TIME article as mere "media hype," these other contributions to the media treatment of AGW and 'environment as religion' have plenty to contribute, without any of the hype.

If more people heard Crichton's speech, or read Mullis' essays, we'd be much better off in many regards. Environmentally, not the least.

Deny ignorance.

jw

[edit on 9-11-2009 by jdub297]

lol, Crichton?

No wonder you have issues knowing ass from elbow. And you add to that a biochemist, Kary Mullis - AIDS/HIV and climate change denier. He won a Nobel 15 years ago for his work in Biochem. Cool. Remember to go ask a dermatologist about any brain surgery you might need.

You see, the fact that Mullis has a Nobel provides no credibility to his claims of the validity of astrology, alien abductions, and talking raccoons, or to his HIV/AIDS and climate change denial. In fact, reading his own words betrays his lack of credibility on this issue (from his book):

The concept that human beings are capable of causing the planet to overheat or lose its ozone seems about as ridiculous as blaming the Magdalenian paintings for the last ice age.

Of course, Kary, because your intuitions are bulletproof. He has a Nobel you know! Sod all the sciency stuff, Kary knows best...

There is a notion that our emissions are causing the temperature of the planet to go up, even though the temperature is not going up.

lolwut? The temperature wasn't going up? This in a book published in 1998?



Of course, Kary's own internal thermometer knows best!

Even if the temperature were going up, we would be foolish to think we caused it. We could just as reasonably blame it on cows.

Of course, Kary...your gut tells you so and Kary knows best! Why bother with the sciency stuff? It's just as likely to be those pesky cows that caused 30% increases in atmospheric CO2. At night they sneak into Coal power stations and burn carbon that's been locked up out of the atmosphere for millions of years! They are even destroying ecosystems by the bucketload. The cunning buggers waited until the human industrial revolution to put their dastardly plan into action...

In the nineteenth century the temperature went down. In this century it's gone up only about half a degree. The trend over the last two centuries is down. Down is not warmer. So if you like to worry, worry that we might be moving into a new ice age. We could be.

lolwut? He's actually trying to say we've had cooling over the last 200 years? Say from 1798 to 1998? But he accepts we had warming of 0.5'C up to 1998ish. So he therefore would think that temps were even higher in the late 18th century (>.5'C) - would be the only way to get a downwards trend through to the late 20th.

Kary's intuition tells us so! Pity the data says something else...



Intuition fail. Funniest thing is his anti-scientific rants...

We accept the proclamations of scientists in their lab coats with the same faith once reserved for priests.

Yet he expects people to take his pseudoscientific intuitions on faith. No evidence needed for Kary! He's got a Nobel donchya know...

Best thing for these old crusties is to keep their traps shut, they just destroy their credibility each time they open them.

"They can't pooh-pooh me now, because of who I am" Kary Mullis

Nope, we just laugh at the old fools as they pooh-pooh themselves.

Take care. Ciao.

[edit on 9-11-2009 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin
Much as I'm sure you enjoy your ability to respond to substance with sarcasm, salted with the same tired graphics lifted without attribution as if they were icons, your replies serve only to confirm your "unshakeable faith" in AGW statism, rather than any ability to reply with substantive grasp of issue and consequences.

The OP is about your government's granting of a status equal to religion to "environmentalism" generally, and AGW specifically.

Of course your ever-present icons are precisly the equivalent of the symbols and statues of more traditional religions. The mantra of "projections" and reliance upon "modelling" reveal the same clinging comfort of chants and spells of other "faiths."

On topic:

It appears that your courts have only proven what others, Cridhton and Mullis among them, have seen coming for quite some time.

A brief search revealed that the high court's "revelation" has been a long time coming.

Among the many dozens who've seen the derailing of critical thought by elitist snobbery and self-serving statism are a few who have earned the right to comment and consideration (neither of which you will respect):

Environmentalism given same weight as religion in British employment laws
www.economist.com...

Freeman Dyson – Environmentalism: The New Secular Religion
www.uncommondescent.com...

Environmentalism: The Religion for an Eco-theocratic Superstate?
www.conspiracyarchive.com...

Environmentalism: a new religion
www.guardian.co.uk...

Vaclav Klaus: “Environmentalism as Religion”
www.cato.org...


I expect your urge to jeer instead of read is irresistible, but maybe others will appreciate the opportunity to see what others think.

Deny ignorance.

jw

Much as I'm sure you enjoy your ability to respond to substance with sarcasm, salted with the same tired graphics lifted without attribution as if they were icons, your replies serve only to confirm your "unshakeable faith" in AGW statism, rather than any ability to reply with substantive grasp of issue and consequences.

The first temp graph is created from woodfortrees.org which allows a user to produce up to date figures from the major data sets. The other two are from the IPCC report, IIRC.

As for the rest of that comment...lol

The OP is about your government's granting of a status equal to religion to "environmentalism" generally, and AGW specifically.

Well, it went beyond that. It was also about 'moral imperatives' and not being restricted to current information (science).

Of course your ever-present icons are precisly the equivalent of the symbols and statues of more traditional religions. The mantra of "projections" and reliance upon "modelling" reveal the same clinging comfort of chants and spells of other "faiths."

It's called data. That's what makes science what it is. Empirical observations. Your anti-science slip is showing again.

It appears that your courts have only proven what others, Cridhton and Mullis among them, have seen coming for quite some time.

And now we have the bait and switch... back to climate science as religion, yawn...

A brief search revealed that the high court's "revelation" has been a long time coming.

Among the many dozens who've seen the derailing of critical thought by elitist snobbery and self-serving statism are a few who have earned the right to comment and consideration (neither of which you will respect):

lol

Environmentalism given same weight as religion in British employment laws
www.economist.com...

True, that's what I was saying. That's not the same as it being a religion. Us elitist statist snobs can make these obvious distinctions.

Freeman Dyson – Environmentalism: The New Secular Religion
www.uncommondescent.com...

anti-science ideologue.

Environmentalism: The Religion for an Eco-theocratic Superstate?
www.conspiracyarchive.com...

anti-science ideologue.

Environmentalism: a new religion
www.guardian.co.uk...

Deceptive. But I'll let her off, as there is also a question mark after the headline the webpage.

Vaclav Klaus: “Environmentalism as Religion”
www.cato.org...

anti-science ideologue.

I expect your urge to jeer instead of read is irresistible, but maybe others will appreciate the opportunity to see what others think.

I just posted the thoughts of Kary Mullis. You didn't. You just presented him as some sort of authority figure ('oooh, he has a Nobel, chemistry in fact'). I gave people the opportunity to see what he thinks. Which is basically him handwaving and thinking from his gut. Yeah, and he's a libertarian, lol. Another anti-science ideologue.

Probably much like you, he prefers the gut to actual data. You know, those empirical observations that serve as the basis of science but you try to label as icons, as if science itself is a religion.

In sum, you're still an anti-science ideologue. Trying to paint an area of science which conflicts with your ideology as just a religion is purely anti-science. No different than what I often see from the creationist ideologues. Indeed, wasn't surprised to see Dembski's website used as a link.


[edit on 9-11-2009 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin

The first temp graph is created from woodfortrees.org which allows a user to produce up to date figures from the major data sets. The other two are from the IPCC report, IIRC.

BS FUD.

Is Environmentalism a Religion?
sierraclub.typepad.com...

The New emerging One World Religion - Environmentalism
www.scribd.com...

Is Enviromentalism the New Religion?
www.freerepublic.com...

It isn't hard to find people on either end of the political spectrum
who either saw this coming or see it now for what it is.

Except those who refuse to see.

Deny ignorance.

jw