Does this mean that anti-environmentalism also qualifies as a religion on the grounds that a disbelief "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"?
Thought not.
This is a sensible ruling. As Karl Popper rightly pointed out, any hypothesis which you can't test in laboratory conditions will always remain a hypothesis and hence something which one is free to believe or not. Environmentalism falls neatly into this category despite their followers claim to tbe "scientific".
The interesting point here is that the matter rests on "regulations" prescribed by a politicla appointee.
This is not a case of a Parliamentary action.
If climate hysteria is a religion it makes Scientology and those money grabbing TV evangelists look respectable.
el windy,
I don't think we'd discard all the discoveries of astronomy because we can't test them in the laboratory.
Does this ruling mean that criticising warm-mongerers is now blasphemous and hence illegal?
Was there ever any doubt?
BTW, Brian, I really like the neologism "warm-mongerers". I may "borrow" it sometime.
Laird,
Be my guest; I think Tim Blair deserves the credit.
This is a worrisome ruling, not least because of the flakiness of much of what passes for environmental science these days thanks to the Met Office, and others.
I don't mind people believing deeply in demonstrably wrong notions, - at least, I don't until they make a nuisance of themselves as this apparently demented chap has.
For a long list of peer-reviewed scientific papers that throw doubt (to say the least!) on the foundations of his silliness, see:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
Wasn't the ruling really that it was arbitrary to view one set of deeply held beliefs as deserving legal "protection" and another not?
Somewhat along the same lines as Richard Garner above, I have commented at An Englishman's Castle as linked.
Best regards
If the same precedent is established in the States, then it would be illegal for public school teachers to teach about environmentalism in a persuasive/ proselytizing manner.
This is wonderful news for us stateside. Now we can prevent government involvement in environmentalism due to separation of church and state.
Now I hope that this opens the door to contest all the "Carbon Taxes" and cap and trade laws as Religious Persecution.
I don't think we'd discard all the discoveries of astronomy because we can't test them in the laboratory.
We can test them in a lab. We form a hypothesis, determine a test that would falsify that hypothesis, and then run the test. If the results falsify the hypothesis, then the hypothesis is wrong.
Environmentalism doesn't work like that. First the test is run, and then the results are shoehorned into the hypothesis. If they can't be shoehorned in, then they are ignored or new results are fabricated.
Blasphemy has been abolished in the UK so I think that criticising the warm-mongers is safe. Also even before the blasphemy law was abolished there seemed to be a sort of unwritten rule that you could blaspheme someone else's religion as long as whatever you said about them was an essential component of your religion.
I think that there is a little more to this story as I believe that this guy's job was something to do with promoting sustainability and he appears to have been sacked for actually doing his job. It is most interesting that he thinks that he has a better chance of winning his case by using the belief thing rather than complaining about the actual injustice involved.
Notice the vestments of religious and judicial ?
Notice the government temples of authority?
And, enough witches in them to conduct inquisitions.
Greek or Roman columns are longer than they are round
"Pillars of the community" really are. Phallusphrenia.
And, what are all these "twin towers" about, anyway?
Once you allow the principle of "antidiscrimination" to be established things like this are inevitable.
"You would not say that if it were you".
Yes I would - for example if Wicksteed Park decided it was not good for the park's image that the first person young families see when they enter the park is a bald middle aged man (me) I would give them no legal trouble.
But the point is I SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO GIVE THEM SUCH TROUBLE.
A job is not a "right" any more than a servant is a slave.
SUBJECT TO THE LIMITS OF CONTRACT an employer must be allowed to tell an employee to "fuck off" just as an employee must be allowed to tell an employer to "fuck off" and go and work for someone else (or try and make a living independently).
After all if an employer is not allowed to fire someone (simply because they happen to dislike them) then the day will come when an employee is not allowed to leave.
"So you do not like working here - well that is a very good reason to leave, now get working".
What exactly does this law say?
Could I refuse to pay my TV license on the grounds that it was an offence to my deeply held beliefs?
It's about time. We've been telling our kids this for a decade now.
It's the same judge who 'last year ruled that the environmental documentary An Inconvenient Truth by Al Gore was political and partisan.' I think I like this judge.
If environmentalism is a religion, then the emblem must be a Green Earth, or a mother Goddess, and the first Book of the sacred collection must be "Silent Spring".
I want to be High Priest! Please Please Please! I'm great at twisting interpretations to suit myself, I've visited a National Park at least once in the past year, and I regularly water plants! (I even make my own water!)
With me as high Priest, Nukes would be good, naturally. What more could you ask for?
Robert Scarth - That's good!!
But you'd have to make it clear that your religious/spiritual beliefs did not disallow your watching TV. But that paying for such a service was a sin in your mind.
As far as I understand it, it's a completely and predictably reasonable judgement under a crazy law - any environmentalist beliefs the guy had which were judged rational, would and could not be protected! But then this is the state in which the Charity Commission concludes that religion per se is a good thing to promote, and that it 'isn't self-evident' that rationality or scientific literacy is too.
For the anti-environmentalist majority here, I recommend that you run, don't walk, to join the First Church of the Stig. (Link) Some say he walks on petrol and is worried by worshippers. He will just have to get used to them.
For those of us whose boat this doesn't float - well, anyone with a personal code of honour worthy of the name would also appear to be protected. How our masters managed to forget about that in the drafting, will be left as an exercise for the reader...
Oops, this comes of posting first thing in the morning! "Anyone with a personal code of honour would also appear to be protected..." should have ended, "...would appear to be protected in any case". The clumsy original wording could be taken to impugn the honour of anti-environmentalists as a class, which was by no means my intent, and I heartily apologize for any offence given.
The First Church of the Stig is supposed to contrast with the environment-venerators alone. I hope this is kind of obvious, but I think it would be rude of me to presume so!
I'm just putting together my hatecrime action on the banning of incandescent light bulbs.
As a worshipper of Huitzilopochtl, here in England I struggle to get enough sunshine to properly illuminate the essential rites of worship. (And the neighbours get a bit upset at some of the sights and sounds which accompany the full service.) Thus it is essential to have decent light in my soundproof basement, and I find that the modern fluorescent gizmos give a cold and dim light unsuitable for the job, whereas the sight of a still beating... as the hot... drips in the warm light of the proper bulbs...
Well, let's just say that a 150W incandescent light bulbs are much more 'fit for purpose' and the banning of such by the anti-religious bigots of the EU commission and their lackeys in Westminster has greatly reduced both the effectiveness and enjoyment of myself and my co-religionists.
Do not get me started on the light-bulb ban. I have searched the four corners for high Wattage bulbs.
I have no time for religions such as Green which seek to ban their non-attherents from things.
The Greens can fuck-off and live in yurts for all I bloody well care. I just want something that gives enough light in the dining room.
Do you ever hear me say, "I don't like those funny little hats Orthodox Jews wear"? Well, I don't and wouldn't wear one myself but I have no objection to them in principle because no Rabbi has at the expense of my taxes tried to force me to wear one.
And Paul is right. The discrimination thing is another stick to beat small business with. It's part of the unholy shotgun marriage of business with state.
Anyone care to argue with me on that after Alan Sugar's recent statements. Sorry, Lord Sugar's statements.
People employ me to do things. I do them. My business need not tick "social responsibility" boxes because it achieves that anyway. I can demonstrate that with a single sentence:
"People pay me of their own free will to do things they can't do or would rather not do and do so without coercion".
Is it possible to be more "socially responsible" than that?
Instead of proposing that environmentalism should/might become the new state religion, why not eliminate state religion altogether?
Disestablishmentarianism.
Let the religions live off the support of their believers, rather than all the taxpayers.
The "Gaia man", James Lovelock, is very strongly pro nuclear - but the "green movement" is not.
James Lovelock did not hold that "Gaia" was an actual being. However, it would be interesting if the great Goddess actually existed and......
Gaia appears before her followers and her first words are.......
"Why have you not built the nuclear power stations that are so needed?"
RE Nick
Do not get me started on the light-bulb ban
right - see below
RE "Environmentalism religion"
well envitronmentalists seem to have the same
self flagellating joy of cutting down on energy to save the planet as do Christian worshippers at Easter
Each to his own
- but everyone should not be forced to save energy
(there is no energy shortage,
notice all the renewable developments.
As for emissions:
Do light bulbs etc give out CO2?
where there is a problem -deal with the problem)
Even for determined ban legislators, a light bulb (car, dishwasher, etc) efficiency tax would be better for them too, giving them tax income while keeping consumer choice
- and efficient products could have lower sales tax than today.
But taxation is itself wrong, merely better for all concerned than a ban.
RE previous comment
"as do Christian worshippers at Easter"
= some worshippers, of course... lenten rituals...