Religion (as defined by dictionary.com)

Does the sort of orthodoxy environmentalism adhered to by many on the left fit the definition of a religion?

Only if science does.

Clearly though, it does not. Can we please be spared 15 pages of rightwing bull**** fuelled by oil company propaganda?

Regardless of what dictionary.com says, the answer is yes, if the question is "do some strands of environmentalism adhere to some people's idea of a religion." What of it?

Ha! What's wrong with the left?

I do not think it's a religion. Environmentalism has a set of practices, a therory on the purpose of the universe, or ritual observances? No.

Just rail on the left! Haha, no, I'm joking.

Only if you generalize the term "religion" to basically strip it of any meaningful content.

As slang yes ("Liverpool fans are religious fanatics"), as actual religion no.

Why? Because even if in the most extreme environmentalists you can find extreme zeal, blind adherence and maybe even fanatisicm, none of these are in and of themselves religious traits. They are merely traits we often attribute most strongly with the religious.

The most fundamental aspect of religion is always a belief in intent and purpose/meaning of the universe and/or soul.

In short the OP is little short of the traditional rhetorical trick; to discredit by proxy - You don't insult directly, you merely claim the targets of your derision to belong to a group/sect which your audience generally distrusts ("the political left are orthodox environmentalists","liberals belong to the political left", "republicans are rednecks","conservatives are warmongers").

By posing it as a question, you give yourself some leeway in that there is no actual claim made. Ofcourse, it isn't an actual question - but that is sort of the idea to begin with.

Stuff like this:
is also a twist of the same. By attaching a negatively connotated word (orthodox) to environmentalism, you give it an omnious tone. It is now something to be distrusted.

This also gives the impression that there is a "correct" environmentalism that the left does not adhere too, but ofcourse...this technique saves you the trouble of actually entering into an argument regarding differing views.

The usage of the word "many" is the traditional "hide in ambiguity". It really carrries almost the exact same meaning as "all", but you have plausible deniability if someone comes up and says "hey, not all are like this".

In short; As a rhetoric excercise...it is a C- because it is too obvious. As a political argument it is an F because it is merely an attempt to discredit without putting your own views to the test.

Thank you. Have a nice day.

brutal

i don't think environmentalism is any sort of "religion", but this was an exercise in seeing other people's feelings.

Ofcourse it wasn't. Your last line made that abundantly clear:

The only reason for masking it as a question was to do exactly what you are doing right now. To make bold statements and not have to stand up for them.

so you don't believe in hypothetical questions?

perhaps i should have used "some" instead of "many" but regardless: good luck with your attack dog tactics. i am sure they will lead you to a lot of success in life.