![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ranting, GIP:
Meh.
Point one is and always will be why do religions deserve charitable status? The only reason it could even kind of make sense is that it allows them to serve as nexuses for several different actual charitable endeavours without having to apply separately for each one. Religion in and of itself isn't charitable; whether or not practising religion or proselytising is a 'public good', it is not a charitable endeavour. Getting people to exercise or to eat fresh food is a public good, too, and we don't make gyms or street markets charities by default.
(Why is the tax code permitted to define whether something has 'the status of a religion' or not? I thought we left that kind of beancounting to the secular world. That said, I am kinda fascinated by situations in which governmental edicts are permitted to drop definitions around such absolutes. See also the concept of intellectual property; or, browsing UK immigration rules, you see the words 'or civil partner' a lot, like UK law putting words to an aspect of natural history that it had not previously deigned to acknowledge.)
However while this ridiculousness still stands, it must be inclusive and admit Druids and other pagans as readily as larger, pushier religions, but the grounds under which it is stated don't read as particularly inclusive to me; "After a four-year inquiry, the Charity Commission decided that druidry offered coherent practices for the worship of a supreme being, and provided a beneficial moral framework." What's with the hangup on supreme beings? Not all religions have them. Some merely have beings, some have nothings.
...and. Yeah. Yeah. Regardless of the standing of druidry in general, the group in the article hit my *headdesk* buttons. Claims of antiquity? Um. You're reconstructionists, you're Victorians - why be ashamed of that? There are young religions that are fairly precise about their points of origin - the Mormons, the Bahá'í. There are reconstructionists who cheerfully wear the label on their sleeves - the Hellenes and the Kemets. And then there's there are young religions that are incredibly shifty about their youngness, their reconstructiveness or both. Idgi. Having an existing structure can be incredibly useful, and![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
lilairen has noted that you need theologans because a religion cannot be composed entirely of mystics, but false claims of authenticity are just so much bluster and I feel like the fear that's concealed by them is that of bad reconstructive theology. Reconstruction is inherently imperfect, but why admit its limitations when you could be off claiming charitable status? If they cite an ongoing tradition, even one that never really existed, they don't have to examine what they're doing or why they're doing it.
(I am really bad at not examining stuff).
Stonehenge is blatantly at issue here; the Druids have all kinds of wrangles with EH (who manage the property) about its use as a religious site but historically it predates Druidry liek woah so clearly has nothing to do with them. They have no claim to the true real stones other than wanting them; neither does EH. It's ugly and the stones and the dawn do not care.
Moving swiftly on, "Senior druid King Arthur Pendragon, told the BBC News website the organisation had had to "jump through hoops" to meet the commission's requirements."
Fanboy.
"Mr Pendragon, of Stonehenge, said he would not be seeking charitable status for his own order - the Loyal Arthurian Warband - as it was a political wing and therefore had no need to be recognised as a charity."
Fanboy!
What is it with Arthurians occupying the bleeding edge between a fandom and a religion? In most other fandom circles naming yourself after the characters, or claiming to really be them, reliably attracts funny looks and long f_w exposes. So does claiming the characters really exist/ed. (Mostly. Three Kingdoms&Dynasty Warriors fandom gets a pretty major pass there, though I am way reluctant to go read their slash.) But Arthurians keep on doing it. Remember Madison?
I'm not saying that it's not possible to regard Arthurianism as a serious strand of your religion's ancient history. That's totally fine by me so long as you're a Christian, Christianity being kinda the entire point of all early Arthurian literature. Even the Golden Dawn use of Arthur to represent principles of tarot and alchemy was centred on Christ and the Last Supper; I don't get how pagans have, since then, picked it up and ridden it all the way to the Astral Plane.
conclusion, the beeb need to stop paying attention to overeager fanboys, end rant.
Point one is and always will be why do religions deserve charitable status? The only reason it could even kind of make sense is that it allows them to serve as nexuses for several different actual charitable endeavours without having to apply separately for each one. Religion in and of itself isn't charitable; whether or not practising religion or proselytising is a 'public good', it is not a charitable endeavour. Getting people to exercise or to eat fresh food is a public good, too, and we don't make gyms or street markets charities by default.
(Why is the tax code permitted to define whether something has 'the status of a religion' or not? I thought we left that kind of beancounting to the secular world. That said, I am kinda fascinated by situations in which governmental edicts are permitted to drop definitions around such absolutes. See also the concept of intellectual property; or, browsing UK immigration rules, you see the words 'or civil partner' a lot, like UK law putting words to an aspect of natural history that it had not previously deigned to acknowledge.)
However while this ridiculousness still stands, it must be inclusive and admit Druids and other pagans as readily as larger, pushier religions, but the grounds under which it is stated don't read as particularly inclusive to me; "After a four-year inquiry, the Charity Commission decided that druidry offered coherent practices for the worship of a supreme being, and provided a beneficial moral framework." What's with the hangup on supreme beings? Not all religions have them. Some merely have beings, some have nothings.
...and. Yeah. Yeah. Regardless of the standing of druidry in general, the group in the article hit my *headdesk* buttons. Claims of antiquity? Um. You're reconstructionists, you're Victorians - why be ashamed of that? There are young religions that are fairly precise about their points of origin - the Mormons, the Bahá'í. There are reconstructionists who cheerfully wear the label on their sleeves - the Hellenes and the Kemets. And then there's there are young religions that are incredibly shifty about their youngness, their reconstructiveness or both. Idgi. Having an existing structure can be incredibly useful, and
lilairen has noted that you need theologans because a religion cannot be composed entirely of mystics, but false claims of authenticity are just so much bluster and I feel like the fear that's concealed by them is that of bad reconstructive theology. Reconstruction is inherently imperfect, but why admit its limitations when you could be off claiming charitable status? If they cite an ongoing tradition, even one that never really existed, they don't have to examine what they're doing or why they're doing it.(I am really bad at not examining stuff).
Stonehenge is blatantly at issue here; the Druids have all kinds of wrangles with EH (who manage the property) about its use as a religious site but historically it predates Druidry liek woah so clearly has nothing to do with them. They have no claim to the true real stones other than wanting them; neither does EH. It's ugly and the stones and the dawn do not care.
Moving swiftly on, "Senior druid King Arthur Pendragon, told the BBC News website the organisation had had to "jump through hoops" to meet the commission's requirements."
Fanboy.
"Mr Pendragon, of Stonehenge, said he would not be seeking charitable status for his own order - the Loyal Arthurian Warband - as it was a political wing and therefore had no need to be recognised as a charity."
Fanboy!
What is it with Arthurians occupying the bleeding edge between a fandom and a religion? In most other fandom circles naming yourself after the characters, or claiming to really be them, reliably attracts funny looks and long f_w exposes. So does claiming the characters really exist/ed. (Mostly. Three Kingdoms&Dynasty Warriors fandom gets a pretty major pass there, though I am way reluctant to go read their slash.) But Arthurians keep on doing it. Remember Madison?
I'm not saying that it's not possible to regard Arthurianism as a serious strand of your religion's ancient history. That's totally fine by me so long as you're a Christian, Christianity being kinda the entire point of all early Arthurian literature. Even the Golden Dawn use of Arthur to represent principles of tarot and alchemy was centred on Christ and the Last Supper; I don't get how pagans have, since then, picked it up and ridden it all the way to the Astral Plane.
conclusion, the beeb need to stop paying attention to overeager fanboys, end rant.