Has anyone else read this article from the telegraph?
It made me sad to read it. The author obviously disapproves of paganism and druidry, but to imply that it isn’t a valid religion is, well, sad. It makes me wonder what paganism would have to have in order for her and people like her to allow it to be called a religion. So, this has caused me to question what actually makes a religion. Here’s what I’ve come up with:
- It being shared among a group of people – while you can have personal beliefs which guide you, a “religion” is one which is shared by many people.
- Have some sort of moralistic compas as regards your actions – including about yourself, how you treat others and how you behave in the greater environment / natural world.
I can’t think of any other requirement for what I would consider a religion. Do you think I’ve missed something?
good god, that article was awful. I mean, the level of theological debate in the media in this country barely above the level of squabling children. But then it was the telegraph…