I agree with Gus that this is a pretty silly example for Jim to use as any sort of evidence that environmentalism is a religion, or whatever the point is at this point. And, it is factually incorrect as well. Although the term 'Druid' was and can be used to describe a shaman, or priest, it does not describe a religion. A Druid was a person who was also a healer, a teacher, a learned person. There wasn't any 'druidic' religion until the last century (1900s) when The Order of Druids was created by mostly politicans, Winston Churchill was one. The term Druid can correctly be used to mean a scientist as well as a priest.
Steven
----- Original Message -----
From: Gus DiZerega <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sunday, February 29, 2004 3:33 pm
Subject: Re: Crichton's argument
> Can you name anyone who thinks of Brower as his or her high priest?
>
> Did Brower perform Druidic rituals?
>
> Pretty silly, Jim.
>
> Gus
>
>
> On Sunday, February 29, 2004, at 08:58 AM, Jim Tantillo wrote:
>
> > John McPhee captures the idea by using a basic religious metaphor
> > with the choice of title for his book ENCOUNTERS WITH THE ARCHDRUID.
> > One presumably cannot be a "druid" without at least *some* religious
> > connotations to that term, no? And in fact I think McPhee detects
> > and communicates some of the same fundamentalist fervor in Brower
> > that Crichton detects in his targeted environmentalists.
> >
> > So, no, I do not think I am using a metaphor that "simply does not
> > fit"; to the contrary, you fellers are pushing me to develop the
> > picture of "environmentalism as religion" more fully than I ever
> > imagined! :-) I mean, David Brower as high priest and keeper of
> > the flame of environmentalist dogma/orthodoxy? I would never have
> > thought of it without all of your help.
> >
>
|