Saturday, October 02, 2010

As schools lose charitable status, Druids are recognised for charity tax-breaks

If it were not so laughable, you might weep with incredulity. At the very time when private schools are losing their charitable status because of Labour's overhaul of a new 'public benefit' test, minority religions like Druidry, which has just a few hundred adherents, are being officially recognised and granted tax breaks because their activities are deemed to fulfil the requirements of the Charity Commission.

How can it be that the provision of education - which is, ipso facto, a public benefit to the country - has ceased to be of public benefit unless schools spend thousands on bursaries and fee remission, while prancing around Stonehenge at the summer solstice and hugging trees whilst listening to Enya - which are, de facto, minority pursuits of benefit to no-one - are now judged to be of benefit to the wider public?

The Charity Commission for England and Wales, the quango that decides what counts as a genuine faith, has effectively just added another tick-box to the 2021 census form. And if it is not there, there will be cries of 'discrimination' as they refuse to be classified merely as 'other'.

The police recognised Druidry a year ago, and now grant its adherents their official holidays.

The Attorney General, Dominic Grieve QC MP, has the role of protector of charity law. He has already moved to ensure that the Charity Commission's guidance on fee-paying schools is overhauled and does not impinge upon their manifest public benefit.

He ought now to turn to the absurd consequences of religious relativism which stem from Labour’s obsession with ‘equality’ and their nonsensical anti-discrimination agenda which demands that every creed be treated with equal reverence and respect and that no offence may be given to anyone about anything.

Although many international and regional human rights instruments guarantee rights related to freedom of religion or belief, none attempts to define the term ‘religion’.

The absence of a definition is not peculiar to international human rights conventions; most national constitutions also include clauses on freedom of religion without defining it. Thus we are presented, on the one hand, with important provisions guaranteeing fundamental rights pertaining to religion, but on the other hand the term itself is left undefined. Of course, the absence of a definition of a critical term does not differentiate religion from most other rights identified in human rights instruments and constitutions. However, because religion is much more complex than other guaranteed rights, the difficulty of understanding what is and is not protected is significantly greater.

Theologians and philosophers may have the luxury of imprecision, but the Attorney General does not.

It would greatly assist if the judiciary would establish a little case-law clarity on what now constitutes a legitimate religion in the UK, who is judged to be a messenger of God, what doctrine may be preached, what creed followed, and what liberties may be limited. There is no logical end to the pandering to superstition.

For if the Druids are now recognised by the regulator, why not the Jedi?

If worship of the 'divine guides' Brighid and Bran is of public benefit, why should Yoda be stigmatised and The Force repudiated?

Is it really for the Charity Commission to distinguish the Light of Truth from the Dark Side?

50 Comments:

Blogger Jared Gaites said...

Perhaps Dr Cranmer could suggest some guidelines for defining 'legitimate' religion

2 October 2010 at 09:21  
Blogger Jared Gaites said...

?

2 October 2010 at 09:22  
Anonymous gyges said...

"why not the Jedi?"

In Grainger v Nicholson, to which His Grace alluded in his previous post,

"Given that context, philosophical beliefs must therefore always be of a similar nature to religious beliefs. It will be for the courts to decide what constitutes a belief for the purposes of [the Regulations] but case law suggests that any philosophical belief must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance, must be worthy of respect in a democratic society and must not be incompatible with human dignity. Therefore an example of a belief that might meet this description is humanism, and examples of something that might not … would be support of a political party or a belief in the supreme nature of the Jedi Knights"

as quoted in para 10.

2 October 2010 at 09:42  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have the for religion, but unfortunately everyone seems to hate it. Some people especially. Many people know that there are people who have no Religion, and they particularly hate it.

A Religion is something everyone has. Even those who insist they don’t. This is because Religion is simply a set of beliefs about the Fundamental nature of our existence, its ultimate meaning, its origins, and its nature.

Religion need not include Theism, nor need it involve the Supernatural. (Indeed Theism need not include the Supernatural, either, but this is another topic.) All one needs to be Religious is a codified set of beliefs that lock together t form am overall understanding of the Fundamental nature of our existence.

So Secular Humanists, like Richard Dawkins, actually have a Religion, and try to spread it.

Really no one lacks Religion.


-ZAR

2 October 2010 at 09:44  
Anonymous ZAROVE said...

This is a test post.

A Religion is something everyone has. Even those who insist they don’t. This is because Religion is simply a set of beliefs about the Fundamental nature of our existence, its ultimate meaning, its origins, and its nature.

Religion need not include Theism, nor need it involve the Supernatural. (Indeed Theism need not include the Supernatural, either, but this is another topic.) All one needs to be Religious is a codified set of beliefs that lock together t form am overall understanding of the Fundamental nature of our existence.

So Secular Humanists, like Richard Dawkins, actually have a Religion, and try to spread it.

Really no one lacks Religion.


-ZAR

2 October 2010 at 09:46  
Anonymous I think therefore I thwam said...

When I was at University one of the things that tended to reduce the archaeology department to fits of laughter and finger-pointing was the sight of these self-styled 'druids' prancing around at Stonehenge.

2 October 2010 at 09:52  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

You just don’t get it do you! You scoff at Druidry (is there such a word) as I scoff at Christianity. Both are supernatural belief systems and the State has no right to offer either of them charitable status, in effect my taxes are supporting your belief systems.

2 October 2010 at 10:12  
Anonymous PaganPride said...

I don't care about you scoffing about religion Graham - even though your vehement protest against it seem - well almost religious!

But the Christian schools provide educational benefits to the whole community - but pray tell me what benefits the Druids - a laughable make believe attempt to replicate the ancient religion of this land - can bring to our community.

And as this blog is dedicated to the Christian religion, perhaps you should save your blood pressure and return to Richard Dawkins anti-religion religious experience.

And I say that as life long pagan.

2 October 2010 at 10:38  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Mr Davis - we do get it. I also scoff at your secular humanism and it's blatantly ridiculous belief systems. Oh, that's right - you don't have a belief system!!!!

What matters is truth. Druidry - as with Jedi - is false religion.

2 October 2010 at 10:40  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

Rebel Saint

All religions are false, hence the god delusion

2 October 2010 at 11:14  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

Given that his Grace is usually so assiduous in attacking Islamists at any opportunity, I wonder why he hasn't commented on this yet.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/wanted-by-the-hague-genocide-and-by-william-hague-as-a-trading-partner-2094575.html

Does the stinking hypocrissy of the Conservative Party have no limits? I search in vain for any criticism by conservative bloggers.

2 October 2010 at 11:29  
Anonymous len said...

I salute your superior intellect Mr Davis:
To say "there is no God"is to say "I have a complete knowledge of the Universe and all it contains whether in the material or the Spiritual realm"it is to say"I have scoured the Universe to the outermost galaxies and to the depths of the Oceans."
Mr davis,Where were you when the big bang went off?
Explain what it was like to see it? You obviously were there when it happened?
You obviously have stores of knowledge that encompass every minute detail that Science can and ever will obtain.You have wandered into the Spiritual and the supernatural realms checking and analysing, searching for clues.

Most impressive, I being a mere mortal will take God at His Word and believe his version.(As He was there at Creation and possibly you weren`t?)

2 October 2010 at 12:03  
Anonymous Andrew Craig-Bennett said...

Obviously the Public Schools deserve their charitable status.

The Headmasters' Conference is the most sucessful Faith in Britain, with adherents in High Places like Diane Abbott MP.

As the godly consideration of Predestination and our election in Public School is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to wealthy parents and such as feeling in themselves the working of the Spirit of The Age, mortifying the works of the flesh and their earthly members and drawing up their mind to the payment of high school fees, as well because it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal membership of the upper middle classes to be enjoyed through the Old School Tie, as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God: so for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Necessary Readies at the Bank, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of British Predestination is a most dangerous downfall, whereby the labour market doth thrust them either into desperation or into wretchedness of most unclean living no less perilous than desperation.

2 October 2010 at 12:22  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Couldn't agree more with you Cranmer, it was all so much clearer when there was just the one imposed expression of the sacred run by 'his grace' and good king henry and anyone differing from that view was simply tortured or put to death. All for the common good though. Better that way.

2 October 2010 at 12:47  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The charity commission is, I understand, about granting tax breaks to organisations or parts of organisations that benefit the community.

So schools count by default, unless show to teach against the state and public and/or refuse to teach the standard curriculum.

Religions don't count, their charity work will or should count as charity.

What charity work do Druids perform? Prancing sky clad, whilst entertaining, doesn't count as charity.

Chris

2 October 2010 at 13:28  
Anonymous len said...

If you do not know the real God, (of Abraham,Isaac and Jacob for those still undecided) then I suppose you make up your own' gods' ie the inventions of man or attribute elements of nature to be' gods.'Or alternatively just deny Him altogether(Atheists)

The Charity Commission seems no better equipped than Atheists or the adherents of earth- bound religions to discern truth from error.
(I thought they were getting rid of these quango`s ?)

2 October 2010 at 14:14  
Blogger srizals said...

If I may,

[82:6]
O man! What has deceived you about your Gracious Lord,

[82:7]
who created you, then perfected you, then brought you in due proportion?

[82:8]
He composed you in whichever form He willed.

[82:9]
Never! (i.e. one should never be heedless towards him.) But you deny the Requital,


As I see it, humans tend to fancy themselves with things that amused them. We adore ourselves and this self-adornment would make it hard to distinguish between the real and the false. Most could not survive reality, so some choose to live in the land of fantasia.

2 October 2010 at 14:34  
Blogger srizals said...

len said...
If you do not know the real God, (of Abraham,Isaac and Jacob for those still undecided)

If I may your grace,

[12:3]
By revealing this Qur’an to you, we hereby narrate to you the best narrative, while before this you were among those unaware (of it).

[12:4]
(It happened) when Yūsuf said to his father, “My father, I saw (in dream) eleven stars and the Sun and the Moon; I saw them all fallen prostrate before me.’’

[12:5]
He said, “My son, do not relate your dream to your brothers, lest they should devise a plan against you. Surely, Satan is an open enemy for mankind.

[12:6]
And it will be in this way that your Lord will choose you and teach you the correct interpretation of events, and will perfect His bounty upon you and upon the House of Ya‘qūb, as He has perfected it earlier upon your fore-fathers, Ibrāhīm and IsHāq. Surely, your Lord is All-Wise, All-Knowing.”

2 October 2010 at 14:45  
Blogger srizals said...

As for the topic at hand, again your grace, if I humbly may,

[12:38]
and I have followed the way of my fathers, Ibrāhīm, IsHāq and Ya‘qūb. It is not for us that we associate any partners with Allah. All this is a part of the favor Allah has bestowed upon us and upon the people, but most of the people are not grateful.

[12:39]
O my fellow prisoners, are different gods better or Allah, the One, the All-Dominant?

[12:40]
Whatever you worship, other than Him, are nothing but names you have coined, you and your fathers. Allah has sent down no authority for them. Sovereignty belongs to none but Allah. He has ordained that you shall not worship anyone but Him. This is the only right path. But most of the people do not know.”


A thunderstorm is coming. I have to log out.

2 October 2010 at 15:02  
Blogger Oswin said...

A little unkind re' Enya!

Do you suppose, Your Grace, that we may now expect to see a massive increase in 'family/domestic enclaves' used for Druidic worship, as is the case with many mosques? The latter nowt but an excuse to 'scam' the authorities of council-tax et al?

2 October 2010 at 15:32  
Blogger Oswin said...

srizals - you can bet your second-best pair of pantaloons that a thunderstorm IS coming!

2 October 2010 at 15:36  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chris Williams
As usual, a wonderful piece.
However,the charity commission being a New Labour packed quango, what about ignoring it and treating it as below contempt?
Does what it say deserve the time of day? No

2 October 2010 at 16:18  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

‘Although many international and regional human rights instruments guarantee rights related to freedom of religion or belief, none attempts to define the term ‘religion’.’

Through the Human Rights Act 1998 the Socialists locked us into the European Convention of Human Rights:

For example here are the criteria from case law that define the parameters of judging Article 9 cases ('everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion'):

1. Article 9 includes the freedom of belief and the freedom to manifest belief
2. A belief does not have to be a religious conviction
3. A belief can be an absence of belief
4. A belief (i) must not be trivial (ii) must be consistent with basic standards of human dignity or integrity and (iii) must be coherent, in the sense of being intelligible and capable of being understood
5. It is hard to predict whether an act is a manifestation of belief or not
6. A religious obligation is likely to be a manifestation of belief
7. A religious motivation is not likely to be a manifestation of belief
8. An interference with an Article 9 right can be justified

Those criteria are a far cry from the 16th century when Elizabeth I refused to 'make windows into men's souls' and thereby signalled the end of State interference into religious belief in England, as one lawyer has put it.

Article 9 (imported into domestic legislation by such instruments as the 2003 Religion or Belief Regulations) was meant to protect religious folk across Europe in the aftermath of the holocaust (it is now being used by the liberal elite to force Christians out of the public square – all three major parties have a reckoning at the next general election to face).

This country’s elite has now reached a position where questions such as could 'Elvis is God' slogans really become protected by law? In a time when the 2001 census recorded 390,127 people whose religious belief was officially Jedi (which was a far larger group than those recorded as Jews or Sikhs or Buddists or Zoroastrians) we risk descending from, literally, the sublime to the ridiculous.

The destination of Socialism (and the Coalition government) is not equality. It is beyond dispute that under a rights based regime when two rights clash one will trump the other. Case law produces winners and losers.

The losers being practising Christians.

May the farce be with the liberal elite.

2 October 2010 at 16:24  
Anonymous len said...

Srizals,
Perhaps God( the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) is trying to tell you something?

2 October 2010 at 16:42  
Anonymous ZAROVE said...

Graham, when you say "All religions are false, hence the god delusion", your still assuming Religion is the same thing as Theism.


As I said ( and was ignored), the actual definition of Religion doesn’t require Theism. it doesn't require Supernatural beliefs either.


It simply requires beliefs regarding the Fundamental nature of our existence. In that way, your Secular Humanism is itself a Religion. You may not like me saying this, or may choose to ignore me, but the Truth remains. There is no logical reason to think of your beliefs as nonreligious. You still have a very well defined set of beliefs and, in fact, with to convert others to it.

Why should your particular beliefs be seen as really different from anyone else’s in terms of function and respectability? And do spare me the “Mines base don logic and science ands your on Faith” Dawkinslike criticism, I want a real answer not propagandistic fantasy.

2 October 2010 at 19:42  
Anonymous non mouse said...

"Is it really for the Charity Commission to distinguish the Light of Truth from the Dark Side?"
Your Grace, might they perchance extinguish it?

I say you're right - promotion of "nonsense" is a foolish and a dangerous thing!

Today you remind me especially of Celtic (Druidic) head cults. Conrad depicted them so ironically - by the circle of heads on poles around Kurtz's compound. As "Heart of Darkness" shows further, wider seas connect the Congo to our own river -- the Thames: at which point I always recollect the image of Thomas More's head on it's pole. Intertextuality leads me further still: to "Beware the Cat": which indeed makes farce of Celticism and RC-ism as writers knew it - in Your Grace's early days.

'Twas ever religio-political, that head cult! Did not the Druids, through their oral tradition, serve as repositories of all tribal lore: history, law, administration? Did they not monopolize all power over their tribes - one way or another, through heads? Did not the early Celts try keep their enemies, the Anglo-Saxons, from such knowledge?

Dumbification, dumbification, dumbification! So as to the Charity Commission: "Off with their heads," I say!

One quite sees why latter day Druids might amuse members of an archaeology department, though.

2 October 2010 at 19:47  
Anonymous Generalfeldmarschall said...

Your Grace

I can only support (pace the noisy a-[whatevers above] Your Grace's view.

2 October 2010 at 20:20  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Druids are recognised for charity tax-breaks"

Rowan Williams should be happy then.

2 October 2010 at 22:11  
Blogger Phil Taylor said...

Has this change come about because of druidism reaching a particular number of adherents in the UK?
The way I remember hearing it, that was the only way smaller religions were recognised specifically on a census form. That's why there was such a big thing made of claiming to be a jedi at the last census.

3 October 2010 at 00:39  
Anonymous ProjectSilence said...

I like how he states Education as a public benefit, but uses the case only in defense of non-Public institutions. Which are not of benefit to the public, just those fortunate enough to pay their way in.

3 October 2010 at 01:11  
Anonymous not a machine said...

It hardly seems fair to point out to Graham Davies that yet again , his divsions on thought are fault ridden , antithesis he feels is an evangelical matter , requireing him to call others fools and make his thoughts wise .

Yet again Mr Davies I ask you the pressing question "what would act to you as proof that god exists ?"

To the post I have always thought of the druids as a sort early sketch , rather than pagans , they do have some interesting thoughts on relationship to nature and in some ways are the sum of an ancient northern european culture that probebly existed in age , more time than the 2000 yrs of christianity . Again in our modern world of recordable televisual imageary and science , we perhaps have lost our link with the insticts of the seasons , when would have had be tending our own crops and animals and far more sensative to feeling our enviroment with our senses. In that sense I can see why they value there communion with nature rather than loyalty points on your supermarket card . However christ showed us somthing about ourselves as humans , giving us the detail of how mens actions and desires have a godly intention and folly and so progressed in showing us that we have somthing to understand that was not present in the undertsanding of druids , god must have been work before christ so there may be order.

Your grace notes the charities commisson and its long subtle shift into defining what is civic and what is not and its is interesting to think that if enough people prayed unto a god called "taxus lessus" and confirmed him/her as there religion they could recieve charitabe status.

But here we go again panthiesm ruled by athiests , vying for the life blood of money is perhaps what Orwell never got round to phrasing although I do admitt its where the red eds may want to go , following in the less militarised beliefs/footsteps of the idealogical feeds and making of national socialism , usrprised that no one has spotted that his father fleed from militarised version of his beliefs only for his sons to somehow believe that a media mind bending induced form of national socialism would bare more fruit, rather than conjur up a pathological chancellor with an ecnomic scorched earth mindset (let us not forget he backed him), to subjugate his so deemed enemy and with it a vast swathe of public freedom/money .
They say red ed is an intelligent man and freedom lovers should not underestimate him , and yet no one asks him why his belief keeps throwing up nutters that fail in trying to kill ideas with arms .

3 October 2010 at 02:00  
Blogger ENGLISHMAN said...

The communists deliberately introduce nonsense like this to induce hysteria in those for ,against and indifferent to religion,which highlights the manifest flaws a la goedel,that exist within each,and as the "debate" continues,the paradoxes reveal themselves and the individual destroys his own belief by comparrison with them,ignore these fools and strenghten your own belief for ultimately that is all that matters.

3 October 2010 at 08:37  
Anonymous len said...

There is a ploy used by some who oppose Christians and even by some in denominations which do not adhere to Biblical Truth which goes like this,
1, Question the authority of the Word of God, then 2, reject any answer.
Thereby the questioner 'appears' to have 'won' the argument.

Looking back through the posts this is becoming more and more apparent.

3 October 2010 at 09:32  
Blogger Weekend Yachtsman said...

The reason Druids get a free ride whereas private schools are mercilessly hounded, is the assumed class origins of the participants in each case.

The Druids may be harmless idiots, but they are (assumed to be) leftist persons with acceptable views, therefore they are to be supported.

The private schools, on the other hand, are - to Nu Lab - one of the bastions of the enemy class, and therefore must be attacked at all times with whatever weapons come to hand.

"Dame" "Suzi" Leather is just the most convenient stick to beat them with at the present time.

Lenin would, without any doubt, have approved entirely.

Incidentally, the new government has announced a review of this pernicious and spiteful "charitable purpose" test and it seems at least possible it will be modified or abolished.

Always assuming, of course, that this wasn't a cast-iron promise from the PM.

3 October 2010 at 10:41  
Blogger Woman on a Raft said...

Given the rubbish which is classed as a charity, such as the 10:10 Trust (1137030), the Druids are irrelevant.

Charity law was overhauled in 2006 to make sure that Labour could continue to expand its quangoids in to the charity sector. This was to wash public money through those instruments and in to its private pockets. Thus it had publicly-funded parking spaces for its minions.

3 October 2010 at 10:47  
Anonymous Pete_dtm said...

Um, the Druids were wiped out by the Romans, their religon obliterated.
What little is known of Druidism survives in mostly Roman anti-Druidic propoganda. Interstingly you could only be Druid (acording to Roman & Gaulish sources) if your MOTHER was a Druid (or the daughter of a Druid).

So who are these so called Druids ? According to the Romans pretending to be a Druis was a capital crime. Please can we apply at least this reported solution to these pepple ?

3 October 2010 at 22:25  
Blogger Oswin said...

Many believe that Druidism was not so much a 'religion' but an organised system, comprising of layers of governance (for want of a better term)and education, that included the sciences, mathematics, medicine, astronomy, astrology, divination, philosophy, oratory etc ... rather like a cross between the Civil Service and Freemasonry. Different levels, performing different tasks. A hierarchical structure of competence, wisdom and ability, from the very top, throughout the social layers.

Prior to the Roman invasion, Britain was renown for its learning; having a number of 'universities' that catered beyond its borders; including Roman, Greek and other Mediterranean students and scholars.

Thus, come the invasion, Rome knew that it need destroy the power of the Druids. The barbaric rituals and murder, attributed to the Druids, are the lingering remant of a once accomplished system, reduced to a desperate shadow of its former glory.

Many of those of the British 'ruling classes' were pleased at the demise of the Druidic system too; being freed from any obligation other than to their own ... better to pay a few taxes to Rome, they thought.

4 October 2010 at 00:02  
Blogger ZZMike said...

"... minority religions like Druidry, which has just a few hundred adherents..."

It'll take them a while to catch up with the Jedi.

Here in America, Wiccans are clamoring for recognition.

oswin: "... Prior to the Roman invasion, Britain was renown for its learning; having a number of 'universities' that catered beyond its borders; "

Oxford and Cambridge, perhaps?

4 October 2010 at 01:06  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

Zarove

Apologies for not responding earlier.

Theism means belief in one god who is capable of intervening in worldly affairs, this applies to the three Abrahamic religions. I am not bothered whether you refer to humanism as a belief system or not, it is simply an explanation of how morality exists without religion.

As regards the supernatural, perhaps you could name a religion that does not include some form of belief in the supernatural? Religions are false for that very reason, they claim the existence of a being and a realm that is outside human experience and this is a delusion.

4 October 2010 at 09:32  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

not a machine

To answer your question. Proof that god exists would be evident for us to see if he/she/it existed, just like radio waves and electricity, invisible but verifiable. Even better would be a personal meeting along with an explanation of why he/she/it had allowed life on earth to develop as it has. But please no personal revelations, these are psychological fantasies and no holy books, they prove nothing.

4 October 2010 at 09:39  
Blogger Oswin said...

ZZMike @ 1.06

You forgot Durham!

Ok, I should have said 'seats of learning' ... but I did give inverted commas...

4 October 2010 at 17:16  
Anonymous len said...

Graham Davis ,
Regarding radio waves,electricity,text messages, etc. These are not 'picked up unless you have the necessary equipment ie a receiver or some means of decoding signals.
Now God is a spirit and transmits Spirit to spirit and to communicate with God your receiver needs to be in tune, and in good order.
Of course if your receiver is obsolete or dysfunctional don`t blame the transmission.

4 October 2010 at 19:34  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Graham-

Zarove

Apologies for not responding earlier.



Not to wrry, its a busy blg and we all have our time...




Theism means belief in one god who is capable of intervening in worldly affairs, this applies to the three Abrahamic religions.

No, its not. Theism is a beleif in a minium of one god. However, there coudl be others. Liekwise, Theism can include a Noninterventioanlist god.

Theism is a blanket term covering any type of beelif in any sort of god or gods.

The other terms suh as Deism, Polytheism, or Pantheism are all still a aprrt pof the operative definition of Theism, but make a specific Theological beleif identifiable. Still, Theism is nto an alternative to Polytheism, Pantheism, and Deism, but rather all three of the latter are a for of Theism.




I am not bothered whether you refer to humanism as a belief system or not, it is simply an explanation of how morality exists without religion.


No, its not. Humanism is in and of itself a Religion. Religion does not require Theism, all Religion requires is a set of beleifs regardign the Fundamental Nature of our existance and that establishes a framework by which we can interpret and understand our world. Humanism is not all about morlaity wihtout Religion, but is a Religion ina nd of itself. Also, all Religions, including Hmanism, extend beyind juts Moral Philosophy.





As regards the supernatural, perhaps you could name a religion that does not include some form of belief in the supernatural?


Humanism.

Traditional Christianiy. (The idea of the Supernatural was created much later in time.)


Some forms of Buddhism.

Some ofrms of Judaism.

Sme forms of Islam.


Objectivism.


neitcheism.


Extreme Liberal Christianity.


Need I go on?





Religions are false for that very reason, they claim the existence of a being and a realm that is outside human experience and this is a delusion.


No, they don't.

1: Yoru own beleifs are Religious by definition as they are a set of beelfis that explain our existance. Thats all Religion is. Religion is not about belivign in a being that is supernatural. Religiin is not all about Theism and is not a SYnonym for Theism.


2: You certainly can't say that God is outside of Human expeirnce if peopel claim to have expeinced God. You may dismiss God and their expeinces, but its not convincing.


3: Not all Theism requires beleif in a Supernatual realm. If one inderstands thigns liek Angels and Spirits as part of our Natural World rather than Supernatural, then the whole "Supernatrsl relm" becomes rather nonexistant.


4: Why do Athiest sliek yu spell god in lower case? I realis eyou dont beelice in God but you shudl beelice in Grammar, nd all names are capped.


yes I knwo the excuse. God is nto a name, tis a title. Well, its nto relaly a title at all, but ehat the beign is. Worse, all words used as if they are names are treated as names in English. If you say a god or the god you cna leav eint in lower case, but not if you just say god.


It was not god who gave Moses the Ten Commanmends on Sinai, but God. The word in this sentence is used as a name, so is a name.

Please spare me the idea that its abotu showign respect to a detiy you dont in, its abotu Proper Grammar.


Oh and I am dyslexic before its asked.


-ZAR

4 October 2010 at 19:37  
Anonymous ZAROVE said...

Graham-


Zarove

Apologies for not responding earlier.

Not to worry, its a busy blog and we all have our time...


Theism means belief in one god who is capable of intervening in worldly affairs, this applies to the three Abrahamic religions.


No, its not. Theism is a belief in a minimum of one god. However, there could be others. Likewise, Theism can include a Non-interventionist god. Theism is a blanket term covering any type of belief in any sort of god or gods.


The other terms such as Deism, Polytheism, or Pantheism are all still a a part of the operative definition of Theism, but make a specific Theological belief identifiable. Still, Theism is not an alternative to Polytheism, Pantheism, and Deism, but rather all three of the latter are a for of Theism.


I am not bothered whether you refer to humanism as a belief system or not, it is simply an explanation of how morality exists without religion.


No, its not. Humanism is in and of itself a Religion. Religion does not require Theism, all Religion requires is a set of beliefs regarding the Fundamental Nature of our existence and that establishes a framework by which we can interpret and understand our world. Humanism is not all about morality without Religion, but is a Religion in and of itself. Also, all Religions, including Humanism, extend beyond just Moral Philosophy.


As regards the supernatural, perhaps you could name a religion that does not include some form of belief in the supernatural?



Humanism.


Traditional Christianity. (The idea of the Supernatural was created much later in time.)

Some forms of Buddhism.


Some forms of Judaism.


Some forms of Islam.


Objectivism.

Neitcheism.


Extreme Liberal Christianity.


Need I go on?

Continued Below.

4 October 2010 at 19:51  
Anonymous ZAROVE said...

Continued form ABove.


Religions are false for that very reason, they claim the existence of a being and a realm that is outside human experience and this is a delusion.



No, they don't.


1: Your own beliefs are Religious by definition as they are a set of beliefs that explain our existence. That’s all Religion is. Religion is not about believing in a being that is supernatural. Religion is not all about Theism and is not a Synonym for Theism.


2: You certainly can't say that God is outside of Human experience if people claim to have experienced God. You may dismiss God and their experiences, but its not convincing.


3: Not all Theism requires belief in a Supernatural realm. If one understands things like Angels and Spirits as part of our Natural World rather than Supernatural, then the whole "Supernatural realm" becomes rather nonexistent.


4: Why do Atheists like you consistently spell god in lower case? I realise you don’t believe in God but you should believe in Grammar, and all names are capped.

yes I know the excuse. God is not a name, its a title. Well, its not really a title at all, but what the being is. Why people try to claim it is actually a Title is beyond me as its not something conferred upon someone but rather a definition of what something is.


Worse, even though the word god itself is not a name, all words used as if they are names are treated as names in English. If you say a god or the god you can leave it in lower case, but not if you just say god.


This, you can’t say people belief in god, and be using proper Grammar. You, in this sentence, would be using the word god to identify only one specific person, place, or thing. Leaving the word god in Lower case is therefore bad Grammar because the word god is the name of the subject.

That is, the word god is a name when it is used to specifically identify someone, which is what you do. Therefore, its not right to spell god in Lower case. Atheists began this to show they don’t believe in god, and as Christians spell god in lower case with other peeps gods, we should spell god in lower case referring tot heirs. They never bother4d to ask why God is capped, they just assumed it was about reverence. It wasn’t, its about Grammar. SO I ask you to spell God with a Cap G, if you would, to show actual Grammatical performance. I know you won’t as you need to advertise how you have no respect for god, but its just silly to spell a name in Lower case.

4 October 2010 at 19:52  
Anonymous ZAROVE said...

Continued From ABove.


Religions are false for that very reason, they claim the existence of a being and a realm that is outside human experience and this is a delusion.



No, they don't.


1: Your own beliefs are Religious by definition as they are a set of beliefs that explain our existence. That’s all Religion is. Religion is not about believing in a being that is supernatural. Religion is not all about Theism and is not a Synonym for Theism.


2: You certainly can't say that God is outside of Human experience if people claim to have experienced God. You may dismiss God and their experiences, but its not convincing.


3: Not all Theism requires belief in a Supernatural realm. If one understands things like Angels and Spirits as part of our Natural World rather than Supernatural, then the whole "Supernatural realm" becomes rather nonexistent.


4: Why do Atheists like you consistently spell god in lower case? I realise you don’t believe in God but you should believe in Grammar, and all names are capped.

yes I know the excuse. God is not a name, its a title. Well, its not really a title at all, but what the being is. Why people try to claim it is actually a Title is beyond me as its not something conferred upon someone but rather a definition of what something is.


Worse, even though the word god itself is not a name, all words used as if they are names are treated as names in English. If you say a god or the god you can leave it in lower case, but not if you just say god.


This, you can’t say people belief in god, and be using proper Grammar. You, in this sentence, would be using the word god to identify only one specific person, place, or thing. Leaving the word god in Lower case is therefore bad Grammar because the word god is the name of the subject.

That is, the word god is a name when it is used to specifically identify someone, which is what you do. Therefore, its not right to spell god in Lower case. Atheists began this to show they don’t believe in god, and as Christians spell god in lower case with other peeps gods, we should spell god in lower case referring tot heirs. They never bother4d to ask why God is capped, they just assumed it was about reverence. It wasn’t, its about Grammar. SO I ask you to spell God with a Cap G, if you would, to show actual Grammatical performance. I know you won’t as you need to advertise how you have no respect for god, but its just silly to spell a name in Lower case.

4 October 2010 at 19:54  
OpenID Gurdur said...

I included this (along with some mild criticisms) in my Sunday/Monday blogs round-up - 03 October 2010, along with Archdruid Eileen's and The Church Mouse's blog posts on it. Cheers.

4 October 2010 at 21:35  
Anonymous len said...

I have posted on church mouse`s blog and had comments removed.Seems to be very P C, (almost mouse like.)

5 October 2010 at 08:49  
Anonymous I think therefore I thwam said...

Were you pointing out he'd got something wrong Len? That could be your answer.

8 October 2010 at 07:01  
Anonymous Oxford Andrew said...

Good for the Druids! They seem a remarkably harmless and harmonious lot! If only the adherents of all religions were such ...

12 October 2010 at 10:31  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older