Environmentalism and the First Amendment

I've been corresponding with a friend about a few political issues surrounding Mitt Romney. She is an atheist and is concerned about the first amendment. She asked me how Mitt Romney felt about the separation of church and state. Well, I wrote her a VERY long response (she is indeed a true friend if she read the whole thing), but in it I mentioned the idea that the modern environmental movement is essentially a religion. I think there are a number of "religions" that have emerged recently, as so many people have become a little too "educated" and "sophisticated" for traditional organized religion. I believe the human need for religious expression is so deeply ingrained, it cannot be eradicated. It will simply take on different forms if one form becomes unacceptable. One of the most obvious of these modern religions is the Church of Environmentalism. I hope everyone will read this speech by Michael Crichton. I've talked about his books before, but this speech (he has a bunch of speeches and essays on his website which are very good) encapsulates some of his ideas very well.

http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-environmentalismaseligion.html

However, I wonder if anyone else has ever thought about the Church of Environmentalism in light of the First Amendment? The First Amendment forbids the establishment of religion by Congress. It's difficult for me to view some of the acts of Congress concerning environmental issues to be anything BUT the establishment of a religion, since many of these laws and bills coming through Congress are quite simply based on NOTHING but faith in this religion. It would be unconstitutional for Congress to pass a bill banning the sale of religious art for private use in the home. So how is it not unconstitutional to pass a bill banning the sale of conventional incandescent bulbs by 2012? This is a real bill that has already been passed. And if anyone tells me that switching over to compact fluorescent bulbs will have any impact on our environment whatsoever, I will very happily flood your email box with so many articles and references disproving this, that you will never think to doubt the wisdom of Gabrielle again!!!! LOLOL

Similarly, it would be unconstitutional for public schools to show movies made for the strict purpose of converting the viewer to Christianity, and dramatizing the literally hellish consequences for those who refuse to convert. So how is it not unconstitutional for schools to show "An Inconvenient Truth" which is so patently nothing but propaganda for the Church of Environmentalism? (Again, if anyone tells me that movie has a shred of objectivity, I will be more than happy to shut down your email program with articles and references proving that movie to be what it is-- religious propaganda.)

Anyway, food for thought. It would be interesting to do an analysis of public speeches by politicians over the last year, comparing the number of references to God to the number of references to Global Warming. LOL!!