Environmentalism is NOT a religion

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jun/26/climate-change-skeptic-religion

Can environmentalism be classified as a religion? The first Amendment of the constitution gives protections to free speech, freedom to assemble and the freedom to practice your religion. But, the constitution does not describe what a religion is, or, what you need to be protected under the 1st amendment with regards to religion. The article I have chosen to discuss gives a brief, rather accurate description of what “religion: means. “Religion can mean a "pursuit or interest followed with great devotion" – a definition which could just about allow environmentalism to be classified as a "religion". But it is more commonly defined as "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods", or "a particular system of faith and worship". Equate "greens" with this type of religion, with faith and deities, adherence and heresy, and it becomes all but impossible to prove or disprove the central tenets of environmentalism.” Individuals are desperately trying to perceive environmentalism as a religion to gain protection of religions freedom prescribed by constitution in the 1st amendment. If an individual brings a claim to court stating that their religions freedom has been abridged the Burdon of proof lies within the government to show that the law was necessary to achieve a compelling interest. When an individuals constitutional rights are taken away, by a law, or policy governed by the state or government, the law must pass a strict scrutiny test. Strict scrutiny is the highest level of scrutiny. Strict scrutiny must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of a large number of individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections. The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest, then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored. The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest: there must not be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest. The test will be met even if there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this "least restrictive means" requirement part of being narrowly tailored, but the Court generally evaluates it separately. There are many laws that are being passed with regards to the environment, and globally conscious individuals are using the constitution to protect certain rights that only a religion would have. The Supreme Court has laid down some precedent on the subject in 1990 with the Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990). In this case native Americans were smoking peyote which is a religious normality and tradition within the native American religious belief system. However, they were banned for smoking peyote because it was against the Oregon law. Smith brought a claim to court arguing that by not allowing him to smoke peyote it was abridging his religious freedom. The supreme court did not rule in his favor and stated that if a law is generally applicable, and is not facially discriminatory then it shall apply to religion as well. Because of the precedent set forth from this case it is highly unlikely that environmentalism will be classified as a religion. It is a political scientific topic at best and religion should be preserved for faith rather than science. If this becomes a religion, you can guarantee that we will see many other religions begin to service to gain the protection of the 1st amendment