The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The case for an end to religious privilege > Comments

The case for an end to religious privilege : Comments

By Moira Clarke, published 26/11/2012

Australians might be interested to learn that one of the ATO's definitions of 'charity' is the 'advancement of religion'.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
Why on earth should Amnesty be a “pro-choice” organsiation? It was set up to campaign for human rights, specifically to gain the release of prisoners of conscience. I was a member who believed in its cause. I wrote letters seeking the release of prisoners of conscience. After the DLP disbanded in 1978 and had to dispose of its assets, I gained a $5,000 donation from the DLP to Amnesty. I organised the curriculum at my government school so that a branch of Amnesty could operate as a class in the elective program. I never expected it to campaign against abortion. I was content that it left that issue to others, but being neutral on abortion was just not good enough for the trendoids who now run the organisation. When it became a pro-abortion campaigner, I resigned.

Churches do not have shareholders, so the idea of “profit” is empty. As for Gloria Jeans (whose coffee I don’t drink) donating tax-free profits, I point out the donations are tax deductible anyway.

Now the usual tactic in these debates is to label people with my views religious fundamentalists, so I state for the record that I am not religious at all and that I believe the Catholic Church has behaved appallingly in the case of child sex abuse.
Posted by Chris C, Monday, 26 November 2012 8:10:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Moira, a very timely article. I wholeheartedly join with you in righteous indignation at the continued special treatment given to religious institutions. These unfair privileges are a leftover from (the first) Elizabethan era, and are way past their use-by date.
Posted by Rosemary Sceptic, Monday, 26 November 2012 9:40:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Congratulation to Moira Clarke on an excellent article.

I am not sure of Amnesty's approach to the rights of women to control their own reproductive activities but in my view such activities are primarily each woman's own concern and certainly no concern of anyone else other than her partner. Between the age of 20 and 40 each woman has the opportunity to fall pregnant about 250 times. Why can't we let her choose which occasions might suit her plans for her future?

Why is the Roman Catholic Church so concerned about one foetus when about 20,000 children die each day from hunger, poor quality water and untreated medical problems. That church's priorities are crazy.

As for furtherance of religion being a definition of a charity, what absolute nonsense! Promotion of religion is usually directed at the young and other vulnerable people. If we teach our children to look for evidence in every learning situation they meet, and teach them how to distinguish verifiable evidence from nonsense, we will be providing them with the best preparation for a fulfilling life for themselves their future partners and their offspring. Religion is generally opposed to that concept.

Modern religions are, as conceded by Cardinal Pell on QandA, 4-5000 years old. Yet we are a species over 100,000 years old which separated from the common ancestor we shared with modern apes millions of years ago.

We live on a planet formed from the debris of the supernova explosion of an earlier sun and our planet orbits a 4.5 billion year old sun in a 13.7 billion year old universe. Where does the Abrahamic god exist except in all that except in the heads of the religious adherents?

And, our taxpayers have to accept that promoting that belief is charitable? What nonsense and what shame on out politicians.
Posted by Foyle, Monday, 26 November 2012 9:43:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Convincing argument!
Particularly, when one considers the number of sham religions, and or the fact, that numerous "religious" organisations are in business, and given a tax free status and endless volunteer workers, place bona fide business enterprises, at a inherently unfair and serious commercial disadvantage!
Not for nothing is it writ large, render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's!
Meaning, not only should money making organisations be subjected to the very same tax laws and treatment as everyone else; but, and without exception, exclusion or special privilege/treatment, our civil laws as well!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Monday, 26 November 2012 10:42:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Is the author proposing to restrict the free exercise of a religion? He should be aware that this is contrary to Section 116 of the Federal Constitution.
Posted by plerdsus, Monday, 26 November 2012 11:51:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tax exemptions are not necessary for the free exercise of religion. Free exercise of religion does not mean without cost. It means without government restriction.
Posted by david f, Monday, 26 November 2012 11:59:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Those of us supporting separation of church and state are satisfied that adults who follow a religion can believe whatever they like. You might think that you have an invisible friend, but we are almost certain that you don't and that little lack of certainty is only because it is impossible to prove a negative.

What we object to is your religious organizations getting a free ride at the expense of those who do not believe what you believe, particularly when many of those organizations compete with genuine tax paying businesses.

We would not object if Sanitarium (Weetbix) claimed a tax deductible donation after it donated its profit to the Red Cross, the Blind Society, the Fred Hollows Foundation or any organization spending as much as it can of its income on genuine charity (providing proper care to the needy without proselyting). But, not paying tax because that profit goes to a group primarily promoting a religion is a travesty.

We also object to the fact that you can separate your children from ours and still expect us to subsidize the efforts of your leaders to indoctrinate easily mislead young children. I would willingly pay more tax to have all Australian children educated in a state system. Everyone could then ensure that that system was excellent, as largely happens in the Scandinavian countries.

You as an adult might be gullible in an age where there is no evidence of any god or anything supernatural, but please bring your children into the real world by teaching them how to find and evaluate evidence. To do otherwise is stifling their personality and intellect.
Posted by Foyle, Monday, 26 November 2012 12:53:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Chris,

As someone who previously donated to Amnesty, I am surprised to hear that some of my donation went to teaching in school, let alone teaching for-or-against abortion. I was under the impression that this money goes wholly and directly into freeing prisoners of conscience.

On the topic itself:

As a religious person, I agree wholeheartedly that religious organisations should not be tax-exempt beyond any other non-profit organisation, such as sport clubs and music bands. I also consider it a scandal that tax-payer money goes to churches - or to any other social/cultural/sport/art/etc. group. These are all private matters that should be paid for in full by the individuals who want them.

While I do not agree with the author that religious organisations should be subject to anti-discrimination laws, it is my firm conviction that no other entirely-private entity should be subject to such laws either.

Just as secular people must be free from the impositions of the church, so should the people of God be free from the impositions of the state!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 26 November 2012 1:26:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Very informative article, this debate should have been settled long ago.

The secular state should not be involved in the support of religious institutions, through tax concession or any other means.
Posted by mac, Monday, 26 November 2012 1:34:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyustu,

"Just as secular people must be free from the impositions of the church, so should the people of God be free from the impositions of the state!" That's a non sequitur.

Actually, they must be subject to the impositions of the state, for civil societies to exist.

Couldn't let that go unremarked. I only agree to the extent that the religious practices of religious people are within the liberal-democratic parameters set by the state and society.
I'm sure you wouldn't support the practice of human sacrifice, for example--the idea of religious freedom, even in the most liberal of liberal democracies, is a myth.
Posted by mac, Monday, 26 November 2012 1:58:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
An excellent article, well argued. Advances in science, since Galileo, have consigned the bronze age 'creation' myths of religion to the realms of fantasy. Yet religion remains on life support (aided by the $31b it sucks from the public purse) to impose a disproportionate influence on secular society. It's long overdue for the ATO, with its own medieval mindset, to be dragged into the 21st century and put a stop to this obscene religious privilege. Brian Morris
Posted by Brian Morris, Monday, 26 November 2012 2:00:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am a Minister in a Christian Church. I say this so as not to be accused of having a “hidden agenda”.
I am a Minister in a Christian Church. I say this so as not to be accused of having a “hidden agenda”.
When writing about the Church, please differentiate between the ROMAN Catholic Church (RCC) and the "Catholic" Church. The term "Catholic Church" means the universal Church of which the RCC is but one denomination (although the RCC sees itself as THE Church and, hence, does not like the word "Roman" to be attached).
On recognising this, many the argument in this article fall apart, because – though I would never suggest there is no abuse in other denominations – the thrust of this article is against the RCC – even though other denominations are mentioned (e.g. Hillsong) it is the RCC: its doctrines and policies that is taken up. Please, don’t tar the whole Christian Church with the same brush!
Definitions need to be tightened to weed out questionable groups, because, due to such generalisations as above, they become a blight on churches trying to benefit of society.
My understanding of tax breaks and exclusions from certain discrimination laws arose to enable religions to undertake activities the government cannot or will not - e.g. very few government employees volunteer to go: distribute free food; provide warm clothing; sit and talk; or fill out pre-stamped Christmas Cards to tell loved ones that park-dwellers are OK. Regarding discrimination laws, religious groups (including schools, hospitals etc.) are, by and large, like-minded, thus engendering efficiency. Forcing them to take on people of different ideas is a recipe for disaster. Allowing churches to “discriminate” assists society at large.
Removing grants to Church Schools would place an unbearable burden on governments if they if they shut down. Their level; means of distribution; and conditions applying is another argument - but the fact remains relevant
Posted by RevDek, Monday, 26 November 2012 2:25:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well said, Mac!

<<The secular state should not be involved in the support of religious institutions, through tax concession or any other means.>>

How true!

Involvement with the state:

1) Corrupts religion.
2) Causes justified anger of the secular against religion and God.
3) Allows the state to interfere in religious matters and the lives of the people of God.

This said about the secular state, how much more applicable when the state isn't even neutrally secular, but follows the false religion of objectivism and teaches its state-school children to worship the latest new god, Evidence.

This written earlier, just saw your new post:

<<Actually, they must be subject to the impositions of the state, for civil societies to exist.>>

If you, as a secular person, want to introduce a civil society, it's your right to do so, but you have no right to impose your society on the people of God without their consent.

<<I only agree to the extent that the religious practices of religious people are within the liberal-democratic parameters set by the state and society.>>

In other words, you want to place your state and society above God and His people, impose your standards on them, then have the audacity to call it "liberal-democratic". Yes, I know your state has guns, police dogs, helicopter gunships and what not, but a true person of God will rather die than break his/her bond with God in favour of your petty society.

<<I'm sure you wouldn't support the practice of human sacrifice>>

Personally not, but it's not up to me to dictate my beliefs to others.

What you do inside your civil society is none of my business. What people of God who did not freely choose to belong to your civil society do among themselves is none of yours. I also do not support the right of people outside your civil society to sacrifice humans of your civil society. If they do, then you have every right to wage war against them and kill them in return.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 26 November 2012 2:29:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How about we who are inflicted with a mythical God at every turn we take Hilary Clinton "God bless Australia or God save the Queen,God bless America, God here, God there, "it is time he was left with the mythical writers who created him,
I do not think a Secular society would dominate the believers of their mythical God, go ahead and worship him , being Secular I agree with Moirai, it is a well written article.
Posted by Ojnab, Monday, 26 November 2012 3:54:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu,

Amnesty money did no go into the teaching at the school. The school provided the teacher and, as far as I know, any materials used. I did not teach the subject, but I imagine there would have been some contact with Amnesty to provide information, which would have been a perfectly reasonable use of Amnesty funds as the students worked to free prisoners of conscience. There was no teaching for or against abortion that I know of as Amnesty had not at that stage adopted the pro-abortion stance it now has. Amnesty would have got a lot of value out of the arrangement given the efforts the students could make on its behalf on the actual purposes for which it was established.
Posted by Chris C, Monday, 26 November 2012 3:54:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
RevDek predicts that "Removing grants to Church Schools would place an unbearable burden on governments if they if they shut down."
Possibly in the short term but the closing of church schools would remove one of the most serious contributors to "otherness", the pervading view of the members of one tribe or social group that those who differ from them are inferior beings to whom the normal "do unto others" respect need not be shown. Some argue that it was otherness in action that allowed the civilised German people to treat Jews so horrendously. In order to gas them, they had firstly to persuade themselves that the Jews — the "others" — were subhuman and that wiping them out was not a crime like murdering members of your own group..
I think Australia would be vastly better off if it rid itself of schools that inculcate in its students the idea that they are in some special way different from, even better than, those "others" not members of their tribe. I believe that the long term benefits would easily repay the short term inconvenience.
While faith-based schools continue to be allowed, it should at least be compulsory for them all to teach a proper study of religion course: one that informs students about the beliefs and rituals of all the world's major religions; one that honestly and frankly informs them of the great evil religions have been responsible for as well as the great good; one that teaches children to seek and appraise evidence to support or rebut religious beliefs. Above all, religious schools should never again be allowed to abuse the minds of innocent children by guaranteeing to them that God exists and loves them but will subject them to indescribably cruel and never ending torture if they don't love him back because not a single person who ever lived, or ever will, could honestly give this guarantee. Those who give it might delude themselves that they are doing God's bidding. In fact they are just lying.
Posted by GlenC, Monday, 26 November 2012 5:21:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Methinks Moira does protest too much. And with too little basis. She does not like organised religion, I get it. Got it every other paragraph. But that is not the point of the piece. Tying the issue of whether organised religion to the accusations of child abuse is polemic not policy discussion. As a matter of practice many religious institutions have undertaken charitable work for centuries. Whether you dislike religions generally or some in particular on any objective measure many do charitable work as defined in law and the generally understood meaning of the word. So why should the charitable work not attract the exemption or is the real argument "because I don't like religion they should not get it." The issue surely is distinguishing the charitable work from the non charitable part of what religious bodies do. That is where it gets hard, both legally and politically. But what the argument here is essentially not about the efficacy or equity of charitable institutions it is more about having a go at religions. Fair enough but don't run the argument under a clumsy purported argument about a legal status. Less protesting and more logic.
Posted by Viniger Joe, Monday, 26 November 2012 7:15:05 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Where religion provides a charitable function it is entitled to the same exemption as any other charity. However, the advancement of religion itself should not be equated with serving a charitable function and should not merit a tax exemption.
Posted by david f, Monday, 26 November 2012 7:56:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Many have urged abolishing the tax concessions that are automatically granted to religions and replacing them with grants to organisations that undertake charity work that contributes a social benefit.

Viniger Joe says, "The issue surely is distinguishing the charitable work from the non charitable part of what religious bodies do. That is where it gets hard, both legally and politically." I suggest it would not be all that hard legally though the churches would make sure it was difficult politically.

At the moment, the situation is that any organisation that meets the ridiculously inadequate requirement to be classified as a religion — virtually a statement that it believes in a god, any god — is entitled to dip it hands in all taxpayers' pockets to fund its proselytizing work. If the organisation instead had to demonstrate that it did charitable work, and to quantify the overall worth of that work to the community, life would be tougher for the churches. But at least when a charity-providing branch of a church dipped its hand into this taxpayer's pocket, I would feel that its case was worthy.

It's surely a reform that is just as obviously needed as is the reform requiring all faith schools to teach a proper national studies-of-religion course, one that teaches children about all religions and how to critically appraise their claims rather than one that merely indoctrinates them in the unexamined beliefs of a particular denomination
Posted by GlenC, Monday, 26 November 2012 10:31:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
GlenC assumes that it is in the very nature of religious schools to promote a sense of superiority and otherness in its students. I disagree. I would, in fact, assert that secular private schools promote "the old school tie" much more (and better, financially) than does the average religious school.

Consider also how it is that many non-Christian parents choose to send their children to religious schools because they see in them a better training for the real world where diversity needs to be recognized and worked with. In other words they see a religious ethos as being advantageous for integration, not a barrier to it. It is also very common to find in "religious" schools children of different faiths, which helps promote conversation and mutual understanding amongst students.

And, contrary to the comments of some, most religious schools do not exist purely to inculcate their own brand of religion into their students, but rather have a genuine desire to educate children well. If this were not the case, it would quickly show up in exam results. Unfortunately for those who promote this argument, results from centrally set examinations show excellent results for many religious schools, thus proving that they are teaching set the curriculum well!

Finally, I must take umbrage at the final comments: "Those who give it might delude themselves that they are doing God's bidding. In fact they are just lying."

I am not a liar. I have a faith that has developed and matured over many years (including times of doubt). Ultimately, time has not diminished it, it has, in fact, strengthened it as I see humanism fail time after time on almost everything it tries to solve.

I should add, that my only child - a son - studied in the state school system.
Posted by RevDek, Monday, 26 November 2012 11:22:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rev Dek objects that, when GlenC made the following comment, he was accusing the reverend of being a deliberate liar.

"Above all, religious schools should never again be allowed to abuse the minds of innocent children by guaranteeing to them that God exists and loves them but will subject them to indescribably cruel and never ending torture if they don't love him back because not a single person who ever lived, or ever will, could honestly give this guarantee. Those who give it might delude themselves that they are doing God's bidding. In fact they are just lying."

Probably the only word I would change in what GlenC has written would be to change "lying" to "being unthinkingly dishonest" - which has virtually the same meaning. Maybe GlenC was concerned about the word count.

To try to convince a youngster that something is true when you can produce no evidence in support is unthinkingly, or maybe deliberately, attempting to distort the future thinking ability of that young person and that is evil, just about as evil as the Jesuit boast, "Give me the child to the age of seven and I will give you the man."

On other occasions I have used the Sunday School song, "Jesus loves me" to illustrate this evil.
The next words are, "this I know, 'cause the bible tells me so". Believe! because an ancient text says it is so; that is out and out authoritarianism.
"Little ones to him belong" - No they don't! They belong to themselves and their future.
"We are weak but he is strong." That's right, belittle them, and undermine their confidence, and claim that someone who may have lived 2000 years ago is alive and strong with absolutely no evidence for that claim.
Posted by Foyle, Tuesday, 27 November 2012 8:27:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't want to prolong this debate because I will never convince dyed in the wool atheists of God's existence - though I am totally convinced of the fact.

What I will say, however, is that the many so-called scientific "facts" that people cling to have large holes in them; many other long held "facts" have been rejected; much of science fails the test of scientific method as they arise out of observations (if they are even able to be made)are used to prove pre-existing theories.

But, I will make one observation. That is that there is more near-to-the-date documentary evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is of Julius Caesar - including extra-biblical material.

As to His continuing to live, well that can be supported from the fact of the willingness of the early Christians - Christians who lived at the time and who were able to verify the stated facts for themselves - accepted the Resurrection.

Before people start saying that the biblical records are questionable, it is not the biblical record that I am referring to. I am referring to verifiable history that shows such people being willing to die because of their acceptance of this. It seems strange to me that people who could have proved otherwise would die for a lie. They must have believed (and it wasn't because of church dogma - which didn't exist at that time) or they would have walked away and not surrendered their lives.

I put these things forward to show it is not as cut and dried as many would have us believe that the Christ-event is a fabrication.

I do not intend to take part in this discussion any more as the comments are moving away from the article's central thesis and are instead moving into the unedifying realm of claim and counterclaim relating to strongly held (and, in my case, well reasoned) beliefs.

My final comment is that I have not been indoctrinated nor brainwashed. I have arrived at my beliefs through a well reasoned consideration of opposing views over a long period of time
Posted by RevDek, Tuesday, 27 November 2012 9:18:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
RevDek, (still listening?) critics do not claim that religious schools exist purely to inculcate their own brand of religion. We simply argue that that is one of the things they do. And doing just one socially divisive thing like that surely creates grave doubts about their right to exist.

If your financial coach says he is convinced that if you buy a certain stock you will be financially comfortable for life, he's giving you an opinion. If you ask can he guarantee it and he says "yes", he is lying because he knows that he can't.

If your religious coach tells says he is convinced that God exists and that if you don't love him you will endure torture for eternity, he's giving an opinion. If you ask can he guarantee it and he says "yes", he is lying because he knows that he can't.

Most people would regard the dodgy finance bloke as a liar, but you mustn't offend the similarly dodgy religious bloke because the religious demand and are accorded special kid gloves treatment.

Much opposition to religious schools would recede if they admitted that what they teach about God is just opinion and if, as good educators always do, they encouraged children to appraise evidence on both sides of the case. But how likely is that?

When RevDek spots scientists revising their "facts", they are illustrating the scientific method, not invalidating it. All rational people change their minds when more up to date evidence is discovered indicating the need to revise old beliefs. He is wrong when he asserts that atheists will never change their mind about God. Being rational, atheists would change their mind in a flash if convincing, replicable evidence of God's existence were produced. It is the committed religious who are the most unlikely to change their minds about God, no matter how much contrary evidence they have to rationalise away.

When committed believers insist that they have engaged in "a well reasoned consideration of opposing views over a long period of time", you have to suspect a triumph of faith over reason.
Posted by GlenC, Tuesday, 27 November 2012 11:27:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes GlenC, I am still following the debate, and I will break my decision not to write again - just this once.

I take umbrage at the statement, "When committed believers insist that they have engaged in 'a well reasoned consideration of opposing views over a long period of time", you have to suspect a triumph of faith over reason.'"

I do this because it is an all-too-easy statement that denigrates those who have made conscious, academic (there are many people - more intelligent that you and I combined - who are committed Christians as a result of their investigations, one example being the well-known C. S. Lewis) and, at times, difficult concessions as they come to their decision.

To belittle those who have undertaken this journey with such a throw away line is totally unhelpful and, not to put too fine a point on it, insulting to genuine believers.

This really is my last word - though I will continue to follow the debate because it touches on a very important subject. My prayer (yes, I mean that) is that the Royal Commission will achieve even more that we all hope it does.
Posted by RevDek, Tuesday, 27 November 2012 11:53:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear RevDek,

I watch in pain how religion is degraded when respected ministers of God bend down in front of secular society and their idols, thus bringing shame on God's Holy Name.

I believe this sad trend began when the church first accepted the state's financial handouts.

One cannot serve two masters at once. Rubbing shoulders with the secular state corrupts the church. Suddenly it is no longer sufficient to love and worship God, but it becomes necessary to "prove" that He exists. Existence is a modern secular term, it is materialistic nonsense and foreign to religion (if you believe in the devil, then you can say it comes from the devil). Only objects can exist, so claiming "God exists" degrades His Holy Name so people come to think on Him as an object. Next, people who as lost sheep consider God to be objective, start worshipping God for material gain - and so religion falls to the level of trade, of trying to barter with Him.

You must let go of Caesar's coin before you can render unto God what is His.

Then you will no longer need to come down to the atheist's sinful level, to argue science on their terms and be found wanting, to try finding reason in that which never required a reason. If as a private person you walk where you shouldn't, in the counsel of the wicked or stand in the way of sinners or sit in the seat of mockers, then only you suffer, but if you do it in your capacity as minister, then all the people of God suffer and become the atheists' laughing-stock.

I urge you to shake the dirt off your robes.

When GlenC writes: "you have to suspect a triumph of faith over reason", I say "Yes, This will be the day - Hallelujah!"
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 27 November 2012 12:36:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The way I understand it, there is a multi-stage leakage of public money due to the special tax treatment accorded to religious organisations: donations to them by individuals, companies or other bodies are tax-deductible to them; these donations are tax-free income to the religious organisation; the church itself, its "staff" and property receive various tax exemptions (eg from GST, payroll tax, fringe benefits tax, property taxes etc); the organisation pays no company tax on the profits of any business owned and operated by it (eg Sanitarium Health Food Company, owned by the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and the music publishing business owned by Hillsong Church). It can go even further: if a business is owned by members of the religious organisation (eg Gloria Jeans/Hillsong), it can make large tax-deductible donations to the church, which is then tax-free income to Hillsong. This untaxed income can be used to pay huge salaries and/or other preferentially taxed benefits to the church's "staff". This is a disgraceful situation.
Posted by Rosemary Sceptic, Tuesday, 27 November 2012 1:38:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu wrote: “ I believe this sad trend began when the church first accepted the state's financial handouts.”

Dear Yuyutsu,

From the fourth century when Catholic Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire until the sixteenth century church and state were united in the western world.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10725 describes an incident leading to the separation in Europe, and http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10790 tells of the separation in the United States.

From the latter article:

Devout Christians such as Anabaptist Balthazar Hubmaier, Catholic Lord Baltimore and Puritans Roger Williams, John Milton, and John Locke have supported separation of church and state. Some Christian supporters appeal to the words of Jesus. Matthew 22:21 ... render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

Spinoza, the great Jewish philosopher, supported secularism based on his reading of the Jewish Bible.

Those anxious to keep peace in a society with many different beliefs favour it.

Those who have beliefs which are in a minority favour it as they wish to be left in peace to worship as they will.

It serves both state and church. The United States has the highest proportion of religiously observant people of any developed country. Although there have been outbreaks of religious bigotry the United States has been fairly free of it. People of any faith or none are free to say or do what they will as government has no authority in that area unless there is a violation of law.

Unfortunately there are those who wish to tear down the separation to be free to impose their beliefs on others.

Separation of church and state has served the United States well, and I think that it would further both freedom and peace if other countries adopted it.
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 27 November 2012 2:07:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
YuYutsu, I'm trying hard to work out what you are trying to make us understand.

"Rubbing shoulders with the secular state corrupts the church. Suddenly it is no longer sufficient to love and worship God, but it becomes necessary to "prove" that He exists." Wouldn't the normal sequence of things be that you establish whether something exists before you decide to love and worship it?

"Existence is a modern secular term …": Do you seriously mean that the term was unknown before modern times and that when introduced it was only by secularists? Remember what a secularist is. It's a person who believes (as I suspect you do) that religion and state should not intrude on each other's areas of responsibility.

"Existence is … materialistic nonsense and foreign to religion" But Christians insist that God exists, that Jesus existed (which almost nobody seriously doubts, by the way) and that there existed a need for people to be redeemed from the original sin committed by their original ancestors who, of course, must have existed to have been able to sin.

"Only objects can exist …": Are people objects? What about music, love, disappointment and respect? What about death and taxes (or tax avoidance by religions, which is what this article was about)?

"…claiming "God exists" degrades His Holy Name so people come to think on Him as an object": May we ask what religion you subscribe to that regards God as something that doesn't exist but nevertheless needs to be loved and worshipped?
Posted by GlenC, Tuesday, 27 November 2012 2:25:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This article has become a touchstone for a thread of discussion for those for or against religion and that part of the independent school system run by various Christian denominations. Those comments have no bearing upon the article itself. Then again parts of the article itself strayed into a polemic about relgion and religious institutions. The issue is the tax status of charitable institutions. Moira Clarke states "Many have urged abolishing the tax concessions that are automatically granted to religions and replacing them with grants to organisations that undertake charity work that contributes a social benefit." Those "many" display an otherworldliness about service delivery. The proposed prescription is more centralisation, more form filling, more applicants waiting to see which agency or department will consider whether to approve or reject an application. Why does Moira think Government is the solution to the problem? Talk to academics who spend too much of their life writing applications for grants. Government tends to be hopeless at this sort of activity. Slow and inept at properly targetting the problem. Charities and non profits, eg Smith Family, are far better at service delivery. There are big legal problems in working out what is purely religious and purely charitable. A soup kitchen run by a parish or vicerage. Is that religious or charitable? Of course it is hard. To say otherwise is to permit prejudice to override logic.
Posted by Viniger Joe, Tuesday, 27 November 2012 3:17:25 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
RevDek,

Anyone who claims to base their faith on academic grounds is simply being dishonest with themselves. Those who were not indoctrinated as a child “find” God only when they’re feeling lost and/or their lives have hit rock-bottom. Any regular church-goer (quietly) knows this.

So-called “academic” conclusions reached in a theist’s “journey” are either drawn from an incredibly biased search - where anything not supporting a particular premise is ignored - or is riddled with logical fallacies. C.S. Lewis is a classic example of the latter with his false trilemma that fails to take into account the fourth and most likely ‘L’: Legend.

Even if the Gospels and the vague and questionable non-Christian accounts of a person, who may be Jesus, can be believed, what does that say for a God who chooses to convey the most important message to mankind by only revealing it to certain individuals, who then write it down so that thousands of years later we need to rely on copies of copies of translations of copies by anonymous authors with no originals?

The God that Christians believe in is incredibly stupid if it wants to actually achieve its goal of spreading its message to humanity by relying on texts, by relying on languages that die off, by relying on anecdotal testimony. That's not a pathway to truth and anything that could qualify as a God would know this - which either means that God doesn’t exist, or he doesn’t care enough about those who understand the nature of evidence to actually present it.

There’s no amount of anecdotal, testimonial reports that could be sufficient to justify believing that the events actually happened as reported - no amount - and anything that could qualify as a God would not be relying on ancient texts if he wanted to convey this information to people in a way that was believable.

There is no such thing as a reasoned faith. Faith is the antithesis of reason. Faith is the excuse people give whey they don’t have a good reason to believe something; it’s where reason goes to die.
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 27 November 2012 3:38:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you David,

I agree and fully support the separation of church and state. It's just that I was not aware of this use of the word "secularist". It's certainly not what I meant when using 'secular'. What I meant is (by Merriam-Webster) 'worldly', 'temporal', 'not overtly or specifically religious'.

Dear Glen,

<<YuYutsu, I'm trying hard to work out what you are trying to make us understand.>>

Nothing in particular, I was writing to RevDek.

<<Wouldn't the normal sequence of things be that you establish whether something exists before you decide to love and worship it?>>

Where existence matters, yes.

Normal love is conditional.
When you truly love someone, you don't care how they look.
When you love them even more, you don't even care whether they exist.

<<Do you seriously mean that the term was unknown before modern times>>

Again, sorry for confusing the meaning of 'secular'. I think that the term 'existence' was earlier used in a much more loose manner compared with today's scientific precision.

<<But Christians insist that God exists>>

They are wrong on that point.

(that does not make them 'bad' or less religious, only mistaken)

<<Are people objects? What about music, love, disappointment and respect? What about death and taxes>>

Relatively speaking these are, it's workable for ordinary living, but ultimately there is nothing but God, so none really exists and none really is an object.

<<May we ask what religion you subscribe to that regards God as something that doesn't exist but nevertheless needs to be loved and worshipped?>>

I follow the principles of Advaita Vedanta.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 27 November 2012 4:22:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
GlenC wrote:

"At the moment, the situation is that any organisation that meets the ridiculously inadequate requirement to be classified as a religion — virtually a statement that it believes in a god, any god — is entitled to dip it hands in all taxpayers' pockets to fund its proselytizing work."

Religion is broader than your definition. Unitarianism and Buddhism do not require a belief in God but are religions. Religions may be theistic or non-theistic.
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 27 November 2012 6:19:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Religion is broader than your definition. Unitarianism and Buddhism do not require a belief in God but are religions. Religions may be theistic or non-theistic."

David F, you are right of course. I'd forgotten all the reasons why I was so shocked a couple of years ago when I read various countries' explanations of what they accepted as a religion. Thanks for the correction.

AJ Phillips, may I record your response to RevDek and use it whenever Christians with a strong missionary bent knock on my door on those increasingly frequent days when I struggle to string together coherent sentences! Thanks. Beautifully succinct.
Posted by GlenC, Wednesday, 28 November 2012 10:59:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
> The cost of all this? An estimated $31B per annum,

I find it hard to believe that all that money will "magically" appear if you remove tax concessions on religious and other non-profit bodies. It's probable that not collecting those taxes is having a nett positive benefit on the community, one way or the other.

Whatever the case, I think the writing is on the wall for all types of NGO's. Despite this, I believe it will only strengthen the resolve of these organisations to make the world suck less despite how difficult the "state" makes it for them. It's in such times that Christian's believe God does his greatest work.
Posted by AI, Friday, 30 November 2012 9:17:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy