I'm confused by your argument that the destruction of this tree has something to do with abortion; in any event, It doesn't logically follow from your essay that it's no big deal to destroy more life, even if it's just a beautiful 200-year-old tree.
I'm confused by your argument that the destruction of this tree has something to do with abortion; in any event, It doesn't logically follow from your essay that it's no big deal to destroy more life, even if it's just a beautiful 200-year-old tree.
No, the point is not that we should destroy trees. I think the point is that British have not gotten rid of religion, but have replaced Christianity with nature worship.
I'm confused by your argument that the destruction of this tree has something to do with abortion; in any event, It doesn't logically follow from your essay that it's no big deal to destroy more life, even if it's just a beautiful 200-year-old tree.
The point of the essay was that all cultures are religious, because man is a religious being. It wasn't about whether we should keep trees.
The point in fact seems to be that we should destroy trees (living things) and revere crucifixes (dead things/symbols of human sacrifice).
No, the point is not that we should destroy trees. I think the point is that British have not gotten rid of religion, but have replaced Christianity with nature worship.
Any bets on the religion of the knob with the chainsaw and his stance on abortion?