On Jan. 29 the Recorder published “Listening for a fuller — wilder — truth” by Jonathan Von Ranson as a My Turn piece. On Feb.11, Joseph Zorzin of Orange has a letter published in which he objects to Mr. Von Ranson’s use of the word “religiously” in regards to believing that there may be “implications of global warming.” Mr. Zorzin writes, “The only time anyone should do anything “religiously” is for a religion. In this case, the religion is the theory that climate change is an existential threat to civilization and all life on Earth.”
“Global warming” or “climate change” is not a religion; it is widely accepted as scientific fact. You and many others may not believe that it is actually happening, and your not believing does not mean that your disbelief is a “religion” either. As a matter of fact, the word “religiously” has more than one definition, and I interpreted Mr. Von Ranson’s use of “religiously” in that context to mean “to act with consistent and conscientious regularity.” Did you choose to use a different definition of the same word to imply that “global warming” does not exist, or what exactly did you mean?
Lastly sir, your use of the word “should” implies that what you’re saying is what everyone is to believe. If you had used the word “could” instead, that would’ve implied that the individual has a choice of what to believe. I’m hoping that you will consider what I’m writing here to be another way of looking at all of this, and a valid way at that.
Russell Pirkot
Greenfield