Is Environmentalism a religion? Loggers file suit against US Forest Service http://www.courttv.com/national/1999/1223/trees_ctv.html Two Minnesota logging companies allege that the United States Forest Service "has allowed itself to be used as a tool, agent, or instrument of Defendants SWAN and Forest Guardians for religious purposes." (AP Photo, see web site) ---- If ever a person committed body and soul to the cause of environmentalism, it's Julia "Butterfly" Hill, who spent two years atop a redwood tree in California to make the point that irresponsible logging is an unacceptable squandering of natural resources. Hill lived on a small platform 200 feet above the ground, collecting rainwater and mist for drinking and washing. Supporters would send food up and take waste down by a bucket attached to a rope. Hill communicated with the outside world with a solar-powered telephone. Hill admits that her demonstration took a great deal of personal strength and even spirituality � but she vehemently rejects the notion that environmentalism is, by any definition, her "religion." Meanwhile, thousands of miles away in Minnesota, two logging companies are trying to prove Hill wrong. They are trying to convince a court that Superior Wilderness Action Network (SWAN) and Forest Guardians, both environmentalist groups, subscribe to a religious belief system called "Deep Ecology." But that's not all. The complaint further alleges that the United States Forest Service (USFS) "has allowed itself to be used as a tool, agent, or instrument of Defendants SWAN and Forest Guardians for religious purposes." In other words, the logging companies argue that the USFS has violated the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by displaying "favoritism to the religion of Deep Ecology" in its decisions regarding use of federal forests for logging. Ray Fenner, Executive Director of SWAN, was stunned when he was served a summons at his home in St. Paul, Minn. Even if you could argue that Deep Ecology is a religion, Fenner points out that his group has nothing to do with it. "I never really thought much about Deep Ecology until this happened," said Fenner. Though SWAN does advocate an end to logging on federal land, it does not oppose all logging, nor does it believe that cutting down a tree is sinful. The director of SWAN was disturbed to learn that the complaint compares his group to "the neo-pagan religions of Druid practices, Wicca and Gaia worship." Fenner said that when he read the complaint, he didn't even know what Wicca was. "I had to look it up on Yahoo!," he said, "and then I realized that they were trying to make us look like witches or something � I'm a practicing Methodist, for goodness sake." Even if SWAN and Forest Guardians are not proponents of Deep Ecology, is there any way that individuals who are could be deemed followers of a recognizable religion? Not so, according to Bradley Karkkainen, a professor of Environmental Law at Columbia University Law School. He described the suit as "absurd" and said that "merely because a set of beliefs is deeply held does not mean it amounts to a religion." The notion that "the Forest Service is somehow 'in the hands' of deep ecologists is ridiculous," said Karkkainen. "It sounds like a frivolous lawsuit to me." Apparently, only the Associated Contract Loggers (ACL) and Olson Logging, Inc., their lawyers, and most recently Rush Limbaugh think the suit has any merit. Stephen Young, who represents ACL and Olson, is the former dean of the Hamline Law School and a founder of the conservative think tank, Center of the American Experiment. He lost a bid for the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate in 1996 and was actually sanctioned by a Minnesota judge last year for bringing a frivolous suit against lawyers for the state who won a case against Big Tobacco. Young insists that his case has merit. "You can preach that trees are sacred, that the Earth is my mother, the sun is my father and all that," Young told the Los Angeles Times. "But in demanding that the government accept your beliefs, you've crossed the line." The USFS, for its part, cannot overlook the irony of finding itself on the same side as two environmental groups it constantly battles in court. "I can't believe we're co-defendants," said Vince Vukelich, an attorney for the U.S. Department of Agriculture who is involved in the case. Even if, for the sake of argument, one were to accept Deep Ecology as a religion and SWAN and Forest Guardians as "believers" � two rather implausible assumptions � the USFS writes in its brief that "There could hardly be less a 'symbolic union' between the Forest Service and its co-defendants." The USFS strongly opposes SWAN's objective of banning all logging on federal land and has argued against it in court. "This is hardly an advancement of SWAN's cause," lawyers for the USFS wrote. In addition, the brief argues, "The lack of a 'symbolic' union between the Forest Service and Deep Ecology is also well illustrated by the fact that the Forest Service is sued equally by those who contend that the Forest Service is too identified with logging interests, that it impermissibly advances the cause of loggers." Logic dictates that the plaintiffs in these cases would hardly find the need to file suit if the USFS had somehow become the mouthpiece for Deep Ecology. But the loggers' case has even more holes. If one accepts their notion that Deep Ecology is a religion, the logging companies are in fact demanding in their suit that the USFS be forced to limit the free expression of those who are said to be "believers." The loggers' argument "essentially stands the First Amendment on its head," contends the USFS. They "seek to limit SWAN's and Forest Guardians' access to the courts," in effect discriminating against them on religious grounds. Thus, the loggers are asking the court to render an order that accomplishes the very same travesty they argue has been perpetrated against them. If this seems baffling, there is good reason: the case, according to a wide variety of legal and environmental experts, has more than its share of problems. Even "Butterfly" Hill, who spent two years living in a tree, didn't need those 200 feet of perspective to conclude that the suit is a weak threat. "I think it's pretty pitiful," said Hill. Young even ends his complaint to the court with a section on remunerations titled "Prayer for Relief." Is he making fun of his own case? He insists that the "USFS threatens to allow any challenge to a timber sale, even challenges masking suspect religious motives." As though these environmentalist groups, which survive through donations and volunteer work, have somehow brainwashed the government into accepting some kind of fictitious pagan religion. Let's forget for a moment that the government wins almost every case filed by SWAN and Forest Guardians, that the groups operate with almost no budget, that Deep Ecology is no more a religion than is the Capitalism of its opponents. What ACL, Olson and Young should worry about is the fact that they could be faced with stiff penalties if Federal District Court Judge James Rosenbaum finds that the suit is frivolous. They might find themselves looking for a good tree to hide behind. By Laura Barandes Court TV
