Ben98....

When you say that "All religions enjoy tax-free status in Australia, for no other reason than they are religious" you are begging two questions, in light of your other statements.

1. What's the connection between this statement and your previous comment?

You said that "religion...is clearly a business". I was criticising this. Look through the determinative factors used to determine if something is a business in Australia (example: http://www.ato.gov.au/content/66884.htm) and you will see that churches are not businesses. Churches have a social intent and purpose. You can see this by their core activities- ie: Worship services, preaching, social welfare, community activities. (And yes, I am aware of the current review of the definition of charity and yes, I support stringent regulations on commercial activities by generally non-commercial entities. This may mean extra admin, but I agree that religious organisations shouldn't get a free pass on commercial activities).

Very very very very few people get rich from religious activities. For every Brian Houston or TD Jakes, there are 1000's of local pastors just getting by. The majority of church pastors go through a bachelor's degree or more, and then earn a modest income. Furthermore, most of the time spent running local churches is time spent by volunteers who don't get paid a cent! Like it or not, these are facts.

2. Art and craft organisations, literature appreciation societies, greyhound racing clubs, etc, can all self assess income tax exempt status in Australia. Why should they receive exemption but religious organisations should not?

It is hard to avoid David Palmer's comment here- unless you're intent on specifically discriminating AGAINST religion, what argument can you mount here?

Trav, You tease us by saying that Benn98 twice begged the question and then not telling us the questions he begged. What were they?

>>Trav, You tease us by saying that Benn98 twice begged the question and then not telling us the questions he begged. What were they?<<

I don't think Trav knows what question begging actually means. It isn't common knowledge: they usually don't teach philosophy at school. Although I see no reason why it couldn't be made available as an elective for senior high school students. A lot of people make the mistake of thinking 'begs the question' means 'raises the question'.

Cheers,

Tony

athiestic beliefs
have feet of clay

STOP LYING TO KIDS*
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13479&page=0

isnt there a little dani-EL
in us all?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13502&page=0

just like allways
they got no fact

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12050#210411

get revealed
and run away

the THEO-ry..of godless evolution of new genus
is fraud*..live with it..it aint worth dying over[or insulting the great good..sustaining all living..our every breath

dare to lok at the proofs
we KNOW god dun it

we can prove science didnt do it
we know even today..science has a THEOry
but no proof..[sure it hides behind plenty of science

BUT the main premise..of non life
lol
evolving into life is lie

and further that snmall'evolutions'[sports/mutations]
CANNOT mutate out of its family genus

thus like the good books say
kids like their parents

sheep bred shep tares breed tares
sure sheep/goat..*kids look alinke
but the groan up..[at harvest are as disimular as tares from wheat

but if you got solf the evolving santa rabbhit lies
you think you got proof

lol
but any science rests on the feet of clay

GENUS..dont evolve..exta[out of genus]
dogs breed dogs..cat's breed cats
LIVE WITH IT

darwin wrote..evolution of SPECIES*
not evolution out of genus!

he knew one was true
the theory of evolution of genus*..the lie

Thank you Chris for your civil, considered response. You make a number of good points. I have as number of responses.

On the issue of taxpayer funded concessions to religious bodies (funded to a degree by the religious taxpayers themselves) there is an historical element at play here that goes back to the early days of settlement when Governments made land grants to church bodies and presumably other institutions as well. The church I attend received such a land grant and on it established a church and school. Later in the 1870’s like most Protestant schools, the school was transferred to the Victorian Government on the basis that the Government could better develop and fund the school. As part of that transaction there was the agreement for religious education classes to be held on a weekly basis, this agreement now being attacked by atheists. In the case of my church the school remains next door as the local primary school.

So there is a historical basis to the kinds of support that churches and all other religious bodies receive.

I feel confident the Atheism being a non theistic belief system could if it was so minded agitate for and receive funding for its own institutions – witness how last weekend’s GAC was able to secure substantial Victorian Government funding, something I might add they weren’t too up front about during the Convention.

Charities of course are currently under review. Religious bodies no doubt along with all other charities have been arguing their continued status. However should all the tax payer assistance (or part) be withdrawn the churches will adjust – maybe some closures (my own denomination has quite a concentration of churches in the inner east, some well attended but others not). Some closures would mean a reduction in number of clergy which would be OK. On the other hand some local churches would feel freer to engage in commercial enterprise using their property knowing that they were going to pay rates and taxes anyway

What I do know is the church will survive and could even benefit from such changes, so I don’t entirely disagree with you. Let’s face it the early church had no property which did not hurt it. The church in China has grown rapidly in recent decades, mostly outside the state sanctioned churches, without Government support - rather the reverse. Estimates of Christians in China range up to 200 million with 80 million the most widely currently accepted estimate.

You make a point about a number of non religious charities, but you miss my point – I’m saying Churches because of their Biblical/Christian understanding of God, neighbour and the world in which we live are continuously starting new charities – thus in my own denomination we have 10, 12 years ago started a new charity to build an orphanage for orphans of AIDS parents and associated school in Malawi. It is truly amazing how our people have responded to that challenge. My question is, ‘what are Atheists doing on the basis of their Atheistic principles and my suspicion is that this kind of activity wouldn’t concern them”.

You have quoted a number of charitable NGO’s to me but the ones you quote are not as far as I know Atheist inspired, they are secular organisations, in which people of Religious faith, no faith and presumably Atheistic belief are able, because of the nature of the work, to work together. By the way the Red Cross started as a Christian organisation which is true of a large number of established charities no longer seen as specifically Christian.

You are plain wrong to conflate secular and Atheist – this was a sleight of hand on your part. In the secular space, e.g. in the functioning of the State the religious and non religious are found jostling together, staking out ground, whilst working as much as possible together.