By Lewis Loflin
When Christian fundamentalists deny their children modern medicine, relying instead on faith, they can—and should—face legal consequences. Consider Herbert and Catherine Schaible of Philadelphia, who let two children die by choosing prayer over science. Already on probation for their first child’s death, they faced criminal charges after the second (WPTV, April 23, 2013).
Now imagine a religious group preventing the Schaibles from accessing life-saving medicine. Should third-party spiritual beliefs override child welfare? If those children went blind or died because zealots knowingly blocked treatment, shouldn’t the perpetrators face murder charges? And if millions of children suffered the same fate, wouldn’t that constitute a crime against humanity?
This raises a question: can those who prioritize “Nature” and the environment over individual children be accused of murder when their actions lead to death? This brings us to environmentalism—specifically, whether it functions as a religion.
A visitor challenged my classification of environmentalism as a religion, prompting a closer look. The Schaibles’ faith fits the traditional definition of religion, but today, “religion” often carries a negative connotation. I argue environmentalism has evolved into a spiritual movement with religious psychological patterns. Beyond those exploiting it for wealth or power—or the passive supporters I’ve discussed elsewhere (Separation of Pseudo-Religion and State)—I’ll focus on Greenpeace, an organized group with dogmatic, often anti-science views bordering on fanaticism.
The World Health Organization estimates 250 million preschool children suffer from vitamin A deficiency (VAD). Each year, 250,000 to 500,000 go blind, with half dying within 12 months. In the Philippines, 1.7 million children under five are affected, and up to half may face blindness or death.
This tragedy could have been mitigated 20 years ago with Golden Rice—a genetically modified (GMO) rice engineered to produce beta-carotene, which humans convert into vitamin A. A cup a day could make a difference. Yet, it’s been stalled by opposition.
Science offers real solutions to save children, but caution is warranted—GMOs, while currently deemed safe, could have unforeseen consequences. Golden Rice isn’t a cure-all for hunger; it addresses VAD but doesn’t provide protein or fats. Organic or traditional farming alone can’t solve this either. Bioengineering holds promise, though history shows unexpected issues can emerge, as with the “Green Revolution” or corporate agriculture, which remains vulnerable to supply chain issues and unaffordable in developing nations.
Enter Greenpeace, a fanatical pseudo-religious cult. Their rejection of technology—whether rooted in anti-capitalism or an anti-human “Nature first” stance—is striking. They elevate “Nature” to a rights-bearing entity, driven by dogma and Marxist economics, opposing science when it serves corporate interests.
Greenpeace wasn’t always this way. Founder Patrick Moore, a scientist, left after six years when the board—lacking scientific expertise—pursued political agendas. They demanded a ban on chlorine in drinking water, ignoring evidence of its safety and necessity. Moore later wrote, “My former colleagues ignored science and supported the ban... Opposition to chemicals like chlorine is part of a broader hostility to industrial chemicals” (Wall Street Journal, April 22, 2008, link). He also noted, “There’s no escaping that 7 billion people wake up daily with real needs for food, energy, and materials... Greenpeace drifted into describing humans as the enemy of the earth” (Beef Magazine, November 19, 2013).
To Greenpeace, industrial chemicals or anything “unnatural” defiles Gaia, and humans, as defilers, take a backseat to nature’s “rights.” Locally, environmentalists in Bristol, Virginia, oppose natural gas fracking—despite its reduction of dirtier coal use—and fought a truck stop, pushing a “sustainable” economy modeled on communist Cuba. These mostly affluent migrants and retirees seem indifferent to local poverty and job needs, mirroring Greenpeace’s disregard for starving children.
Objective science faces similar attacks. MIT’s Richard Lindzen observed, “Scientists dissenting from ecological alarmism see funds vanish, their work derided, and themselves labeled industry stooges. Lies about climate change gain traction despite contradicting science.”
Biodiversity and sustainability have become fundamentalist dogmas. Some even call for prosecuting those violating “Nature’s rights.” Justice William O. Douglas, dissenting in Sierra Club v. Morton (1972), argued inanimate objects should have legal standing. Ecuador’s 2008 Constitution, under Green Marxist influence, codified this in Articles 10 and 71-74, granting ecosystems “inalienable rights to exist and flourish.” In 2012, New Zealand declared a river a legal person (link). Papers like “Global Health Law Embracing Ecosystems as Patients” elevate nature to a living entity—a notion I call religious lunacy.
If Nature holds divine status with rights, are children expendable to preserve “ecological balance”? Greenpeace’s 20-year campaign against Golden Rice has contributed to millions of Filipino child deaths. In 2013, they and allies destroyed test plots, claiming GM eggplants violated Filipinos’ rights to “health and a balanced ecology” (BBC, August 9, 2013). Their website admits Golden Rice’s 20-year development shows no adverse effects, yet they lean on “could” and “maybe” fears, revealing a pseudo-religious bent: “It’s irresponsible to impose GE ‘Golden’ rice if it goes against religious beliefs, cultural heritage, or identity, or if people don’t want it.”
This is absurd. Letting children die because it might offend someone’s beliefs? No—it’s the affluent, Western Greenpeace members’ pseudo-religion, not the desperate brown children they ignore. Their contempt for technology, seen as capitalist tools, underpins their “earth first” rhetoric.
Yale offers a joint Masters in Religion and Ecology, targeting those blending environmental issues with religious communities: “It integrates the study of environmental issues and religious communities... supported by the Forum on Religion and Ecology” (link). The California Institute of Integral Studies’ Ecology, Spirituality, and Religion program states, “Humanity, a planetary force, shapes its future and millions of species... Spiritual traditions engage this transformation, combining moral force with ecology” (link). This pantheistic nonsense fuels Greenpeace’s eco-apocalyptic hysteria over decades.
Greenpeace and their ilk prioritize collective humanity over individuals, shunning empirical science for feelings and fear. We must resist this fundamentalist agenda, rejecting pantheism and nature’s divinity. Science, used cautiously, shouldn’t bow to their irrationality. Conservationism—unlike environmentalism—offers a balanced approach (see Common Sense Environmentalism in Southwest Virginia). Living in Washington County, Virginia, near Bristol, I see natural beauty but also poverty ignored by eco-fanatics. Children’s lives matter more than their dogma.
Acknowledgment: I’d like to thank Grok, an AI by xAI, for helping me draft and refine this article. The final edits and perspective are my own.
"Hypsithermal: The Mid-Holocene Warm Period (9,000–5,000 years ago) when Earth experienced higher temperatures and significant ecological shifts."
