Gus,
>>
>His religion was not environmentalism, Crichton style, but Nature.
>I explained at some length the differences between the two,
>differences you simply ignore. Criticize the distinction I drew
>between Nature and environmentalism as a religion, or stop wasting
>band width. That could be an interesting discussion. Pogo is not.
Well, perhaps this is the point of our disagreement. I disagree that
"Nature" is Brower's religion. It may be his personal faith deep
down, but I think that when Brower is talking of "drawing people into
the religion" he is NOT referring to turning people on simply to the
wonders of nature. I think he (Brower) is talking about recruiting
people to the movement--to the Religion, Big "R". And I think that
is the sense Crichton intends the term as well.
If we're talking past each other, fine. I apologize for that as
well. But I think we're really talking about two quite different
things. And I think Crichton's analysis of environmentalism as
"religion" is fine as it goes.
And on Brower's "religion," Big "R", see some of the excerpts by
people whom McPhee quotes at the time of Brower's ouster from the
Sierra Club:
" 'His supporters believe that the prophet can do no wrong.'
" 'Conservation is a religious movement. So you get sects. And then
you have the art of exposition of the individual creed. Each
sectarian knows that he is right. Dave Brower has been the prophet
leading the faithful.'
" 'The Sierra Club itself is a religious movement.' " (pp. 208-209
Encounters with the Archdruid).
Jim: To me, this is basically what McPhee's book is about. Not just
about Brower's personal faith in "Nature" as a matter of his own
personal little "r" religion, but about some of the sociological
implications of the Sierra Club itself as a religious movement.
jt
|