Global warming and religion - an attempt to define post-secular

I was watching the Oscar nominated documentary Jesus Camp, in which, the radio talk show host Mike Papantonio gives some remarks about creationism and its view on global warming:
"Why our kids thought that global warming doesn't exist?
Ok, why?
Look, rape this world,take everything you want from her, because, you know what?
It doesn't matter.We are not here for very long. Christ is coming to take us away from Earth so cut down our trees,use all of our oil take advantage of everything that the Earth has to offer..."

Due to the fact, that Vatican Bishop Gianfranco Girotti issued a new list of "social" capital sins, in which environmental pollution is amongst, the question is, what is the relation of belief and environmental change.

The End of the Times have become a pop culture icon in the last few decades, maybe due to the fact that we are in fact capable to inflict these dire conditions to ourselves in the form of a sudden nuclear conflict or by process of living up our environment and resources.

So, the question is, if we perceive the process from the point of view of an eschatological narrative, and "let it go", or remain to a secular position, and start to deal with the problem by recognizing it as "ours".

And this leads exactly to the point of define the notion of secular: an issue becomes secular, as soon as it effects "us" rather then "them", "I", and "we" have to deal with them. By the same logic, post-secular comes when the "we" can no longer cover a consensual body of the society, which regulates our common ground by its laws and agreements.

As soon as a party of citizens can withdraw from a public debate by telling that they are not willing to take part of the debate, as it is not "their's" as citizens of the secular state, since there is a law above the state constitution they have to obey for, in this case, the laws of the religion they have to obey to.

Which in fact is a question of technology and its usage. From fuel consuming automobiles to websites many "inventions" of the enlightened, modern, secular society are being used as tools of "separation" from it. People use them, and in most cases also taking the legal, moral, technical, environmental responsibilities with the process.
Terrorism, for example is working exactly to the logic of this separation in the usage and appropriation of technology, as it is using elements of our "technology" to implement as much "terror" as possible.
So do global warming. We producing global warming, by the simple fact we are living in a post-industrial, high-standard, energy consumer society, and not "they" are producing over there, just next door. If we are producing it, and either does not admit it or do, we also have to face the consequences, like if we were signing a legal document after our birth to be the member of a given state.
And here is the point - we are becoming members of a state - an organization which is meant to deal with the major issues of our life, like pollution, rights, preserving of freedom, press, etc in a more or less inherent way. All matters which is considered to be regulated by the state are done so, and all which is not, kept out, free to be practiced until violates the before. Of course, the personal belief is one of these, as it is kept to
The conflict emerges from the point when we can't relate to the consensual system of the state, because the "other" does not recognizes our right to do it - by questioning the scientific, moral, social standards we are built our system on.
Therefore in this case creationism which, in junction with traditional religious belief questions a scientific standard - in this case, the fact of global warming and its effect biological, social on us and the environment.
And the secular can no longer step up and announce these views "obsolete", "un-enlightened", "anit-modern", since the very essence of secular idea, the secular notion of science, which is working for "humaity", is no longer a firm background behind him/her.
You might argue it, or not, make a documentary on it or not, it is a situation we must face.
Read more!