The Ecology Movement Has Become a Religion

Dear voters, my worthy opponent wrote something in his final round that encapsulated his whole argument: "Con argues that if environmental activists were basing actions on religion, they would self-identify as being religiously motivated. The error in that argument is that the definition of religion does not include any requirement for self-identification as being religious. It only requires that there be a pattern of actions based upon faith relative to a concern with "ultimate power." That test is clearly met, even though the participants do not acknowledge their religious faith." Since any rational person will agree that, in geological terms, man has only existed for a tiny fraction of the Earth's history and one day all traces of human civilisation will be erased through fluctuating sea levels, erosion and ultimately, plate tectonics, regardless of our efforts to control climate change, or otherwise protect the environment, the human race on Earth is doomed to extinction. All that environmentally-aware people are trying to do is delay the inevitable. Please note that I mentioned "rational" people. There are, as we know, some irrational people like Christian fundamentalist, hunting enthusiast, advocate of environmental destruction: Sarah Palin; that would argue that God created the world a few thousand years ago and that a woman's need for oil-based cosmetics is more important than anything so insignificant as the long-term survival of the human race. I say that she is irrational because her personal and political views contradict her own faith, for example, the Bible states: "God promises a long life to those who will watch over wild birds. If we rape the land or the creatures in it, what will sustain us in the future?" Deuteronomy 22:6-7 But perhaps Ms. Palin reads a different version of the Bible to most other Christians? ...The Book of Genesis according to St. Dubya of Dallas Fort Worth... "And the Lord God called unto Eve and said unto her, why are there many slaughtered beasts to be found in the Garden of Eden? Didst thou kill them for meat, Eve? And she said, no God, just for fun. And the Lord said, I see. Also, I have noticed a great number of dead fish floating on the surface of yonder pond and the polar bears of that region are covered in black sludge, what hast thou to say about that, Eve? And she did reply, yes that was me as well, I've been drilling for oil. And the Lord did say, listen Eve, I created the Earth and all creatures great and small and it took me six whole days to do so. Do you know how valuable my time is, Eve? It's just not good enough. Look, at this rate the whole planet will be uninhabitable within a few thousand years, what dost thou think about that? And she did reply, I don't give two tosses of a monkey's tail, my Lord, I'll be long dead by then. And the Lord did reply, verily, fair enough, Eve. Sorry, I came over all woolly liberal there, but please do stay away from my prize apple tree, okay?" The point I am trying to make is this: every rational person is an environmentalist to some extent. My opponent is less concerned with the future of the human race than others, accepting some and disputing other aspects of the scientific evidence that points to man having a detrimental affect on the environment. Other people: like the Louisiana fish-huggers that my opponent referred to; take matters from the sublime to the ridiculous. Most of us, however, accept the general scientific consensus and try and do our little bit for the environment whenever we can. But that does being aware of manmade climate change make us all unwitting followers of a quasi-religion as Pro suggests? If so, my opponent was wrong to self-identify himself as an atheist because he is not. He is, indeed, a follower of the Green Religion - not a pious one, by any means, but one of the faithful, nonetheless. Thank you.