From: howardk@aa.wl.com
Subject: ADF vs. OBOD (Was Re: Want info on Druidism?)
Date: 28 Jun 94 08:19:54 -0500


Lazuras (lazuras@aol.com) writes:
> Wups!  Let ME make a clarification now.  I refer to what my wife
> follows as "traditional" druidry to differentiate it from the ADF
> which promotes what I would call neo-druidry.  The difference?
> Traditional druidry follows as close as possible the traditions of
> the ancient druids in as much can be gleaned from history.

Actually, this is one of ADF's goal as well, but the reason we don't
follow the traditions 100% (insofar as they are known) is because they
engaged in some practices which are considered to be distinctly
antisocial today, for example human sacrifice.

> A similiar usage of the word is used when referring to "traditional
> music" such as folk music - which may be a brand new composition,
> but is based on the form and style of traditional music.  On the
> other hand, neo-druidism (as I understand it :) ) uses the "concept"
> of druidism as a kernel, and then has added completely new ideas to
> it in order to adapt it to be more modern.
 
Certainly there are 'modern' ideas - although a very serious attempt
is made always to keep them based on and consistent with what we know
about ancient practices (and what we can infer from other closely
related I-E cultures).  ADF's 'mission' is not purely to recreate the
ancients' Druid path, however.  Rather, we seek to create a path as
closely aligned with ancient practices as possible but relevant to the
modern world.  Ancient religions, as one might expect, evolved to
address ancient concerns.  ADF is evolving to address modern ones.

Hmm.  In rereading the previous paragraph, I see that it can be taken
as a 'nyah, nyah, we are better than you are' statement.  It is not
intended as such ;-) My intent is to reinforce your statements about
the differences between the groups, and clarify one possible point of
confusion ;-) ;-) ;-)

					Walking a clarifying path,

							Jaguar  =^^=