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. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

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