Sunday, March 30, 2008
Defining the membership
It would seem that there is a small but fervent movement amongst a minority within the Celtic reconstructionist community to define anyone whose practices include more traditions than CR, regardless of how separately they may practice them, as not being truly members of CR. As I am someone who practices both CR and Umbanda, this naturally has me interested. I don't think of myself as affected, mind. I don't think the parties responsible for spreading this particular poison are qualified to make this sort of judgment call. They will claim all sorts of reasons why they are, of course. That sort always does. Ironically, the CR FAQ does not decree this particular separation. I should know; I was there when the language was set down and agreed to by all authors and primary contributors. Would it be fair to say that someone who insists on claiming someone can't be CR if they are also practicing a second faith tradition isn't really CR themselves? Or would I be sinking to their level? Not that it matters in the long run. I know what I am doing and how I am doing it. I don't need the approval of someone who is neither teacher, close friend, nor family member to say what or who I am.