Loggers' Suit Alleges Ecological 'Religion'

***********************************************

WORLDWIDE FOREST/BIODIVERSITY CAMPAIGN NEWS

***********************************************

Forest Networking a Project of Forests.org

http://forests.org/ -- Forest Conservation Archives

http://forests.org/web/ -- Discuss Forest Conservation

12/1/99

OVERVIEW & COMMENTARY

Following is an account of loggers taking forest conservation groups

to court for allegedly forcing their Deep Ecology religious believes

on the United States Forest Service. This suit is a shameless

debacle. The loss of logging jobs is tragic but inevitable. The

boom is over. How badly the bust treats us all will depend on how

zealously we conserve remaining forests and pursue the age of forest

restoration. Scientific, economic, spiritual and other means of

knowing and understanding this global ecological crisis are equally

valid, and critical to finding solutions to these complex issues.

g.b.

*******************************

RELAYED TEXT STARTS HERE:

Title: Loggers' Suit Alleges Ecological 'Religion'

Source: Los Angeles Times

Date: November 30, 1999

Byline: Stephanie Simon

ST. PAUL, Minn.--In the velvety quiet of Minnesota's forests, the

U.S. government has buckled to zealotry.

The zealots decreed: Trees are sacred. Thou shalt not cut. And the

government did their bidding. Such is the theory behind an unusual

lawsuit that accuses the U.S. Forest Service of foisting the

"religion" of the Deep Ecology movement on all Americans by adopting

it as a guiding policy for timber management.

The suit, filed here last month by a coalition of loggers,

essentially contends that environmentalists have won. They have

bamboozled the Forest Service into accepting their "religious"

conviction that trees have spiritual value and thus should not be cut

down. The loggers claim the Forest Service's restrictions on timber

sales violate the Constitution because the government is promoting

one religion above others.

"They're imposing this belief on me, and on everyone else in

America," complained David Glowaski, a third-generation logger who

says the restrictions have put his industry in "very, very, very dire

straits."

Fed up and fearful for their livelihoods, the loggers are suing not

only the Forest Service but also two environmental groups that have

tied up timber sales in northern Minnesota's two national forests.

The lawsuit calls attention to the growing spiritual dimension of the

environmental movement--raising intriguing questions about when

passion for a cause becomes religion.

"Environmental issues are, for many people, religious issues," said

Bron Taylor, a professor of both environmental and religious studies

at the University of Wisconsin.

"Many Americans, not just extremists, view certain areas like

Yellowstone or Yosemite as sacred and think they ought not be used

for economic enterprise," Taylor added. "Whenever people invoke the

language of the sacred, we're entering the realm of religion."

Others contend that respect for nature, no matter how profound, is no

more a religion than appreciation for fine wine or zeal for the Green

Bay Packers.

"It's not religion, it's just basic values," said Fred Krueger, who

runs the Religious Campaign for Forest Conservation, a coalition that

sees environmentalism as complementing, not competing with,

traditional faith.

Courts are just starting to address the subject. In a recent New

York case, for instance, a federal judge held that a public school's

Earth Day ceremony crossed the line into religious advocacy when

students were asked to give gifts to Mother Earth and to listen to

prayers to a "Holy Earth Mother." A nonprofit group dedicated to

keeping religion out of public life has compiled a long list of other

alleged offenses, such as a forest ranger urging kids to feel a

tree's spirit by hugging it.

Suit Is 'Nonsense,' Law Professor Says

Although the Supreme Court has never expressly defined "religion," it

has consistently held that mere philosophies don't qualify, said

Michael Stokes Paulsen, a University of Minnesota law professor who

thinks the loggers' suit is "just nonsense." A religion need not have

formal services or even a deity, but it must be built around a

comprehensive belief system that's as all-important as God is to

traditional religions.

The attorney representing the loggers, Stephen Young, believes Deep

Ecology passes that test.

Introduced by a Norwegian philosopher in the 1970s, Deep Ecology

holds that the natural world has intrinsic worth. It is not a

commodity. And humans have no right to plunder it or to tamper with

the grand sweep of evolution by destroying habitat or driving species

to extinction. To Deep Ecologists, thinking about a tree solely in

terms of its dollar value as timber is as ludicrous as calculating

the price of your mother as hamburger.

To Young, it's clear this philosophy constitutes a religion because

it offers believers a comprehensive framework for understanding the

cosmos and their place in it. In his view, pressing Deep Ecology on

the Forest Service amounts not to lobbying but to proselytizing.

"You can preach that trees are sacred, that the Earth is my mother,

the sun is my father and all that. But in demanding that the

government accept your beliefs, you've crossed the line," said Young,

the former dean of Hamline Law School in St. Paul.

The accusation baffles legal scholars who say everyone, even if

motivated by religion, has a right to petition the government.

For their part, the environmentalists named as defendants are

dumbfounded. True, they believe--and believe with urgent passion--

that the U.S. should not allow logging on public land. True too, they

have filed appeals and protests to force the Forest Service to

rethink certain timber sales.

But they insist that religion never enters their work. In fact, their

protests are not spiritual but technical, as they point out flaws in

environmental impact reports and financial projections.

"We're not coming at this from a church; we're coming at it from a

school of economics," said Sam Hitt, executive director of the

nonprofit Forest Guardians.

"I just want the forest there for my kids. That's the main reason I

do this," said Ray Fenner, executive director of the Superior

Wilderness Action Network. "I like to walk in the woods. If they want

to call that religious . . . ." With a grin, Fenner adds that as a

missionary he's a flop.

His protests have delayed some timber sales. But he counts just one

outright victory in the last decade: blocking logging on 1,500 acres

of black spruce. So he can hardly claim the Forest Service as a

convert to his view.

To be sure, logging in national forests in the Minnesota region has

dropped by nearly 25% over the last four years. And it now takes much

longer for loggers to get the permits they need; in some cases, the

paperwork is delayed three years to allow detailed environmental

impact reports. But a Forest Service spokeswoman attributed those

developments as much to congressional meddling (more rules to follow,

less money to work with) as to environmental appeals.

In any case, it's perfectly legal for a government policy to be

consistent with one religion or another. The law against murder, for

instance, traces back to the Ten Commandments. But that doesn't mean

the government has adopted Judaism as a guiding faith. Or take

abortion. Catholics may lobby against it on religious grounds.

Lawmakers may enact partial restrictions. That doesn't mean

government has promoted Catholicism above all other religions.

Young grants that point. Yet he insists his case is different.

There are secular, scientific reasons to outlaw murder or limit

abortion, he argues. Yet there's no good reason to ban logging in

national forests other than a religious reverence for trees.

"Government policy must be based on science, on common sense, on the

secular political process," Young said. A ban on logging, he

maintains, is not.

Environmentalists counter with an arsenal of scientific

justification. They bring in biology: the need to maintain diverse

ecosystems. They discuss economics: Taxpayers could earn more from

their national forests by opening them to recreation than by grinding

them in pulp mills, they insist.

They talk too of a secular goal: Preserving the wild for their

children. "I look at my daughters and think, 'What is going to be

left for them when they're my age?' " Fenner said. To loggers, the

issue is just as emotional.

Federal Land Provides Substantial Income

They've been chopping down trees for generations. And they don't see

the world as worse off for it. In fact, they view themselves as

tending the forest, not destroying it.

Although less than 4% of the nation's wood supply comes from public

land, loggers in some parts of Minnesota rely on the national forests

for up to half their income. To them then, this lawsuit is a matter

of survival.

Newspaper editorials from around the state have ridiculed the

loggers' approach. "This lawsuit reads like fiction," one read.

"Scary," another commented. Ran a third: "The judge should hoot this

litigation out of court."

But Glowaski is convinced the loggers will prevail. The way he sees

it, there must be something illegal about environmentalists with a

soft spot for trees forcing him out of the woods he too cherishes. "I

feel I have a right," he said, "to make a living off the land."

###RELAYED TEXT ENDS###

This document is a PHOTOCOPY for educational, personal and non-

commercial use only. Recipients should seek permission from the

source for reprinting. All efforts are made to provide accurate,

timely pieces; though ultimate responsibility for verifying all

information rests with the reader. Check out our Gaia's Forest

Conservation Archives & Portal at URL= http://forests.org/

Networked by Forests.org, Inc., gbarry@forests.org