>> That's straining credulity, especially considering the waning influence of religion in modern societies.
Not in the least. Dominionist and dispensationalist theology has had a huge influence on modern American evangelicals who in turn have a very significant influence on American politics.
I still disagree, but even if I did agree that religion has heavy influence, it's hard to say this is only a product of the right. Modern American government is largely a product of the victories of the Progessives (early 20th c.), which as a movement had heavy evangelical influence (read up on the social gospel). The idea that religion is somehow exclusive to the right is an oversimplification and ignores somewhat recent history. Of course evangelicals did a 180, but even so it's hard to see our relation to the environment as being mostly defined and controlled by the religious right.
Seems like you're both disagreeing that religion has an influence on modern American government, and arguing that religion isn't exclusive to the right-wing of American politics.
I don't think anyone was suggesting that religion only influences the right-wing, but rather that dispensationalism and dominionism have a greater influence on politics than you're accounting for, and that those movements have a much greater influence on the right-wing than you're accounting for.
Dominion (ownership/power) isn't (just) a licence for exploitation, but also implies responsibility.
There is a growing movement within christianity that recognises this, and has thereby found a way to environmentalism along the right flank of politics. The pope is all in, and so are many protestant churches in Europe. It's mostly just US protestants/born-again reactionaries that continue to only read the unwritten parts of the bible that align with Ayn Rand.
