Yes and no (with more no than yes).

> The problem with the environment is that it's being protected by environmentalists.

Disagree. The problem with the environment is that people have been taught to think that
"an environmentalist" is somehow a bad thing rather than a necessary & vital one.

They've been taught to think that "the environment" is somehow separate from themselves
and their own actions.

They've been taught to think that infinite growth is not only possible but desirable.

Finally, they've been taught to think that they shouldn't think for themselves but just accept
whatever is shouted loudest at them 24x7, that dissent (or even questioning) is bad and
that that mindless submission is good.

That is the problem.


I want environmentalists to remain rational & scientific, their arguments to remain logical & proven
and their appeal to remain sane & factual.

As a result, no, I do NOT want environmentalists to "get mad religious".


On the other hand, all of the religions with which I have had more than a passing contact with
*already* have sacred writings about "preserving the Earth", about "good stewardship", about
"helping the least amongst us", about "doing unto others as you'd want them to do unto you" and
such like. All of them. (And no, I do not count either economics or politics as a religion!)

I appreciate the individual religious "leaders" (from local priest up to Chief Rabbi) when they
recognise and support the environmental message within the context of their faith.

I have seen the good that such blending of environmentalism and religious belief can produce so
yes, I'd really like the religious people to "get mad religious" about those parts (rather than
the usual misogynistic, racist & xenophobic parts which are so much easier for a rabble-rouser
to feed to the herds).


I am in favour of leading by example, of direct action where appropriate and by rewarding good
behaviour whilst punishing bad. Good religious leaders act this way (with "good" meaning in the
sense of moral, honest, consistent & possessing integrity). My personal belief is that this is
because they are "good" people (with or without their religion) in the same way that someone
who hacks off a stranger's head is "bad" (with or without their religion).




For the record: I am not a member of any religion although I was taught at an early age by Jesuits,
have certain Deist, Taoist & Buddhist tendencies, married in a CofE church and have adult children
who are atheist, agnostic & approximately Deist (respectively).