Druidry to be classed as religion by Charity Commission

[Dretlin]

Really?

[Asmodean]

Just what the world really needs... Yet another load of whatever to be called "religion"

[navvelline]

Druidry isn't actually as bad as most Christian denominations, I can't really see them doing much harm.  

[The Magic Pudding]

Druidry isn't actually as bad as most Christian denominations, I can't really see them doing much harm.  :hmm:

[Dretlin]

Druidry isn't actually as bad as most Christian denominations, I can't really see them doing much harm.  

Basing your life on zero evidence or reason and being satisfied with not understanding the world, I feel is harmful.

[Byronazriel]

Druids are some of the most studious and philiosophical peoples on the planet, them dudes are deep.

I mean sure you get all kinds of people among them, but the serious ones actually take a lot of time learning about their religion and the people who inspired it. There's a lot more thought and study than just loafing about in a robe.

[tymygy]

Well, some people classify atheism as a religion. So I'm not surprised.

[Byronazriel]

Speaking of: Why isn't atheism considered a religion but asexuality is considered a sexuality... when it is defined as a lack of sexuality!?

Besides, depending on the definition you're using atheism could certainly be considered a religion. Though it again falls into the same trap as asexuality being a sexuality.

[Asmodean]

Speaking of: Why isn't atheism considered a religion but asexuality is considered a sexuality... when it is defined as a lack of sexuality!?

Because atheism can not be classified as an organised belief in a deity or a doctrine while asexuality is an actual sexual orientation.

Besides, depending on the definition you're using atheism could certainly be considered a religion. Though it again falls into the same trap as asexuality being a sexuality.

Not really to both points.

[Byronazriel]

It's an orientation, yes... But not a sexuality. Asexuality literally means without sexuality.

Atheism literally means without god, not without religion. Religion can be defined as a set of beliefs about the nature of reality.

[Recusant]

I see no reason why modern druidry shouldn't be classified as a religion, if that's what they want (the Druid Network applied for the status that the Charity Commission granted, and the representative quoted in the article was pleased with the designation).  It fits the bill, and is no more or less dubious than Scientology or any other faith that's appeared in the last hundred years or so.

Off Topic:

Speaking of: Why isn't atheism considered a religion but asexuality is considered a sexuality... when it is defined as a lack of sexuality!?

Besides, depending on the definition you're using atheism could certainly be considered a religion. Though it again falls into the same trap as asexuality being a sexuality.

From "Asexuality: Classification and Characterization" by Nicole Prause and Cynthia A. Graham (PDF):

The term “asexual” has been defined in many different ways and asexuality has received very little research attention.

Asexuals reported significantly less desire for sex with a partner, lower sexual arousability, and lower sexual excitation but did not differ consistently from non-asexuals in their sexual inhibition scores or their desire to masturbate.

(Emphasis mine)

Just because somebody identifies as "asexual" does not mean that their life lacks any sexuality.

You go ahead and call atheism a religion, Byronazriel, if it makes you happy.  It's obvious to me that those who choose to include atheism as a religion are following an agenda, rather than reasonable objective interpretation of the word and the expressed opinions of those whom it describes. You haven't made clear that you actually number yourself among them, but your reasoning in favor of that position so far has failed to justify it. I don't think that it's possible to do so without twisting the definitions of both "religion" and "atheism" to fit within the particular agenda which is being pursued.

[tymygy]

Speaking of: Why isn't atheism considered a religion but asexuality is considered a sexuality... when it is defined as a lack of sexuality!?

Besides, depending on the definition you're using atheism could certainly be considered a religion. Though it again falls into the same trap as asexuality being a sexuality.

What your trying to say is, people without religion should be classified as religion?  

Its like this; if I don't love, does that still make me a lover? No. I simply do love or do not. Either I affiliate with a religion or I don't. Atheism is not a religion as a baseball player is not a football player.

[PoopShoot]

You go ahead and call atheism a religion, Byronazriel, if it makes you happy.  It's obvious to me that those who choose to include atheism as a religion are following an agenda, rather than reasonable objective interpretation of the word and the expressed opinions of those whom it describes. You haven't made clear that you actually number yourself among them, but your reasoning in favor of that position so far has failed to justify it. I don't think that it's possible to do so without twisting the definitions of both "religion" and "atheism" to fit within the particular agenda which is being pursued.

Not necessarily.  If one is using the legal definition of religion in order to allow non-belief to garner the same legal rights as superstitions, there need not be any redefinition of either term.

[tymygy]

You go ahead and call atheism a religion, Byronazriel, if it makes you happy.  It's obvious to me that those who choose to include atheism as a religion are following an agenda, rather than reasonable objective interpretation of the word and the expressed opinions of those whom it describes. You haven't made clear that you actually number yourself among them, but your reasoning in favor of that position so far has failed to justify it. I don't think that it's possible to do so without twisting the definitions of both "religion" and "atheism" to fit within the particular agenda which is being pursued.

Not necessarily.  If one is using the legal definition of religion in order to allow non-belief to garner the same legal rights as superstitions, there need not be any redefinition of either term.

how does non-belief classify as superstition? I agree with Recusant, unless you twist and mold athiesm into the lowest possible definition of a religion it will not work. Its foolish to believe atheism is a religion. Atheists (most) aren't superstitious, so how would they classify us as such?

[PoopShoot]

how does non-belief classify as superstition?

Replacing "religion" with "superstition" is a redefinition for the purpose of an agenda, and not an honest one.

I agree with Recusant, unless you twist and mold athiesm into the lowest possible definition of a religion it will not work. Its foolish to believe atheism is a religion. Atheists (most) aren't superstitious, so how would they classify us as such?

None of this applies to using legal definitions for the sake of garnering equal rights for atheists that religions get.  Please address the argument I made, rather than including me in someone else's.