Environmental religion column made no sense

The April 22 guest column “Earth Day's environmental ‘religion'” makes no sense. It hints at an argument, without ever providing one.

Robert Nelson stated the premise of his piece, but never gave any evidence that environmentalism is considered a religion by anyone who calls themselves an environmentalist. He then defined what a religion is without noting how environmentalism fits the criterion mentioned. In that latter regard, simply stating that a particular worldview could be a religion doesn't make it so. A car is a vehicle with wheels and a body. But so is a wheelbarrow.

Nelson doesn't cite any source that definitively concludes that environmentalism fits all criteria of any one definition of religion.

Last, he concludes, having not made a case but simply asserted a truth, that we should treat environmentalism as a religion because he says it's so.

Nowhere does he question the science involved in this or the reality of how humans are affecting the earth. If he was a real conservative, he could justify teaching environmental science on the grounds that we ought to look hard at what we're doing to the planet and to conserve it! But this opinion piece is long on opinion and far too short on facts or logic. Please don't do this kind of disservice to your readers.

Bob Untiedt

Cedar Rapids