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?
