Response to Sarah's post "First Church of Darwin Environmentalist"

I just read Sarah's post on environmentalism, and I saw major coorelation with Alex Fairchild's post "Defining Religion." Alex questions the definition of religion, and concludes by saying that he always keeps "the scientific method in the background" when analyzing religion. I see this as being very similar to the mindset of those who take environmentalism as a religion.

The question of how you define religion is important here becuase one must avoid contradictions. The term "secular religion" is one of these contradictions. Secular by definition means not religious. With that in mind I think that environmentalism can be called a real religion. It has all of the effects as what most think of as religion.