The Charity Commission's refusal in December 2009 to register The Gnostic Centre as a charity raises interesting issues about the Commission's criteria in defining religion and its apparent extension of existing legal boundaries. The decision can be read here.
The Commission considered that the Centre is not charitable as it:
- does not advance education because it promotes a specific point of view and encourages people to adopt a particular viewpoint
- does not promote the moral or spiritual welfare or improvement of the community since "there was no evidence of a clear and identifiable moral or ethical code or framework within Gnosticism" and so has no beneficial impact on the public
- does not advance religion, as it does not have an identifiable, positive, beneficial moral or ethical framework and confines its benefits to too few people
- 1. How the Commission decides what is and is not a religion. In this case the Commission has taken several leaps from the position stated in a 1931 case to stating that a religious charity must encourage "common standards, practices or codes of conduct as stipulated in particular scriptures and teachings" alongside "an identifiable positive, beneficial, moral or ethical framework".
- 2. The Commission's suggestion that it is only because of its "identifiable, positive, beneficial moral or ethical framework" that a religion impacts on society in a beneficial way. Any other benefit would seem now to be relevant only once the moral or ethical framework requirement is met.
No comments:
Post a Comment