aww, c'mon Gus . . .  tell us what you really think.

:-)

You've given us all a lot to chew on, and I'd definitely like to read what
you've written more carefully and perhaps respond in more detail later,
but I must draw attention to one comment that you make in response to
Crichton's statement, "There are two reasons why I think we all need to
get rid of the religion of environmentalism."

You reply:

"Environmentalism is NOT a religion and no matter how often Crichton and
the wise use crowd says it is so doesn't make it so."

I think this is simply a dogmatic (and wrong) statement on your part, and
it seems to me that you are guilty of committing some of the same logical
sins you've condemned Crichton for--for no matter how often diZerega and
the dumb use crowd says it *isn't* a religion doesn't make it so, either.

If you take Emile Durkheim's distinction between "substantive" and
"functional" concepts of religion seriously, then it is clear that many
secular worldviews can, and do in fact, *function* as a religion.  This is
a commonly understood point in virtually all the humanistic disciplines,
including the humanistic social sciences such as anthropology and
political science.  As an empirical matter, environmentalism does in fact
function like a religion, and so is in fact, as an empirical matter, a
religion for many people.

Even John Rawls, as I expect you would know from his book _Political
Liberalism_, argues that when a secular philosophy such as liberalism
becomes an overall worldview, which clearly is the way it can function,
say, for certain academics in the modern academy, then it ought to be
considered a "comprehensive doctrine" just like Christianity, Judaism,
Marxism, etc.  Just because a comprehensive is not a substantive,
denominational faith in the "substantive" Durkheimean sense does not mean
it is not a religion, for it is still a religion in the "functional"
sense.

All one need do to see environmentalism expressed as a comprehensive
doctrine (cf. "Again - names, please") is to take a look at a book like
Edward Goldsmith's _The Way: An Ecological World-View_ (London: Rider,
1992).  Goldsmith truly means it when he says that environmentalism is THE
way.

For an explicit analysis of a secular worldview that is closer to
environmentalism than liberalism as "functional religion," see e.g., the
following article by Wesley Jamison et al. that appeared in Society and
Animals not too long ago:

Jamison, Wesley V., Caspar Wenk, and James V. Parker. 2000. "Every Sparrow
that Falls: Understanding Animal Rights Activism as Functional Religion."
_Society and Animals_ 8 (3):305-330.

Anyway.  I very much enjoyed your comments and hope they spark a lot of
discussion.  But I fear on the religion assertion you are very much
mistaken.

kind regards,
Jim