David, always happy to discuss (time permitting). I believe that dialogue and discussion is the best way through these issues and it is imperative of me to behave as I hope others will.

Firstly, thanks for the list of special financial privileges offered to religious organisations.

With regard to substance of your remarks, you make a number of errors in your argument, which I will address.

Your first error is to conflate charitable and religious organisations. Whilst religious organisations may do charitable work, it is not a requirement to receive special financial privilege. The only requirement is to be defined as a religion, which in Australia is defined as having a supernatural belief. The advancement of religion is itself defined as a charity. I would argue that this is a bad definition. This definition costs Australian tax payers (at least) half a billion dollars a year, of which there is no account for how much is spent on social services and how much goes to unrelated activities (such as church coffers).

So when you ask "unless you want to argue discrimination specifically against religious bodies" my answer is that discrimination is already happening. Defining religion as a charity is a privilege not offered to other organisations, who must defend their charitable status by actually doing and proving they are doing charitable work. Additionally, belief systems without a supernatural element are not defined as religious, so are not allowed. This has allowed religion to amass enormous wealth, directly attributable to the financial contributions of the taxpayer.

You also conflate secularism and atheism. A secular charity is one that does its work exclusive of any tie to religion. There is no question by the atheist movement that the promotion of non-belief be part of charitable work. There is simply the argument that charities not be used by religions to proselytise and recruit.

I will continue in another post as my word limit is fast approaching...

...continued

In your previous post, you make the statement: "Its one thing for the anti God brigade to post mostly noisy and rude blog entries; its another thing to ask how serious are they, will they dig deep and sacrifice time, intellect and money yo their cause. Will they get beyond the whingeing and whining and their smug, unreflective assertions they they alone follow reason?"

Leaving aside the ad hominem attack and examining the substance of your assertion, let's examine your claim that without religious organisations, charitable work would suffer due to the lack of support from secularists (using your definition, "atheists"). This is a strawman argument. There are many, many secular charity and not-for-profit organisations in Australia that do good work.
I have worked for some and given to others. I have a friend who has devoted her life to working in difficult and dangerous conditions both in Australia and overseas for secular organisations.

Examples include:
* Oxfam
* Red Cross
* Doctors Without Borders
* UNICEF
* Fred Hollows Foundation
* Save The Children

...this is the tip of the iceberg

Most of these charities receive their funding just as religious organisations do and rely on voluntary contributions from individuals, businesses, government, trusts, community organisations etc. The difference is, as I stated in my previous post, that these charities must defend their charitable status by actually doing and proving they are doing charitable work, rather than just being a religion, which offers charitable status without the requirement to do charitable work.

In addition, re-inserting the (at least) half million dollars of tax payers money that goes to religions into charitable and social work that is judged not by it's religiousness, but by its outcomes, is surely a reasonable position.

chrisdbarry, you may add Careflight, Rural Fire Services and Surf Lifesaving, etc. We should however not forget the hospital, hospice, aged-care/nursing-home and teaching institutions provided by various religious organisations, and generally at best practice standards.

On theology: I have been seeking evidence of the hand of God in the natural world and the cosmos, and I pose a question for a quantum physicist: What compels light to travel at 'C', irrespective of circumstance?

We see evidence of gravity's influence in red-shift and blue-shift - with a beam of light apparently 'determining' to vary its wavelength (hence, frequency) to 'adjust' for gravitational force, so as to maintain the constant 'C'. This 'shift' would indicate a variance in energy (given that the photo-electric effect indicates higher energy at higher frequencies - and vice-versa). Light has no brain, no intellect, so why this compulsion to maintain 'C'? It is a mysterious facet of nature - but from what causation?

I have not found evidence, but there is an implication that red- and blue-shift would also be observed in light emitting from a body moving quickly away (red-), and conversely towards (blue-), the observation point? Again in response to a compulsion to maintain 'C'. Is it so?

Time is also meant to be a constant, yet we hear of space-time curvature, and the effects of gravity. Could it not be that an atomic clock at high altitude or in space simply 'ticks' faster because its components (atoms, molecules, quanta) are able to move more freely? Do atomic clocks then work by registering the rate of emission of photons, or gamma or other radiation? And, could such emissions not be influenced by gravitational or magnetic forces? Ie, does time shift, or the measuring device? Space curvature may be a reality, but does the same hold for space-time?

Many things in nature are mysterious, a source of wonder and beauty, with one of these being the existence and the nature of light - itself so fundamental to life on Earth. Could the saying 'I am the Way, the Truth and the Light' have an additional aspect?

Hey Trav.... see below...

{"Ben98, were you born in 1998? Just curious."}

Wow - a belittling nasty religious person - thats a change.

{"If true, this is entirely irrelevant to my invitation to the RFF festival. "}

Yes - but it is relevant to your next point, that the RFF is free. Ofcourse its free... the church has been pillaging our wallets for 2000 years! The organiser does not need to cover costs with attendee funds - as it can cover those costs with the huge war chest of funds it has previously accumulated. I get the feeling your well aware that this was the point of the comment, but as per what seems to be your style - your simply choosing to be argumentative and manipulative.

{"None of which changes the fact that the festival was costly to attend, and in comparison, people have less barriers to attending the RFF festival. Hence, there's a reason for them to consider going. "}

Again, it was costly to attend because atheism has not been gathering funds for the last 2000 years and had to cover the costs of this event from the actual attendess. So, your statement that the GAC is a money making exercise is inaccurate - and the comparison you use for "proof" is manipulative.

Continued in next post

{"Forgive me, I must be a blinded supporter.
You do realise that it is entirely unproductive to make sweeping statements like this, don't you?
Are you talking about the church of scientology or your local Baptist church? Or all of the above?"}

I realise you wont get this, but while it is a sweeping statement - it is also correct. All religions enjoy tax-free status in Australia, for no other reason than they are religious... so how would you like me to seperate them? into ones that have run their business really well and ones that haven't done so well? Perhaps the ones that lobby the government for more funds? Or the ones that have the "one true god", Or how about sorting them by the amount of harm they have caused in the last x years. (ill even let you choose the time period)

"FYI, Gloria Jeans is owned by a guy who is a member of Hillsong. It is not owned by "a religion" (whatever that means) nor Hillsong church."

ok, so a religious organisation forms trusts, in order to hold assets, just like a family trust or an individual, so therefore a religous organisation can own assets (and they own a lot of them) - does that help clear it up for you ? (someone else has already corrected you on hillsong)

It's a wonder that there was enough room at the centre for all those massive intellects; or indeed, the even larger egos? If one is to follow a belief system then it would be no bad thing if they went back to the original evocations of their particular founding entity.
Jesus apparently said, turn the other cheek. What do those on the so called religious right, like Sarah Palin say? Put the cross hairs on progressive reformers? Jesus talked about the good Samaritan and doing unto others as we have done unto ourselves. Sounds like a good recipe for a truly workable society? Not so in the money grubbing U S of A, where a plan to provide health care for the great unwashed, met stubborn resistance from the moral majority?
The Prophet Mohamed taught the Jihad is solely an internal conflict against our own inner demons, and showed by his living example to believe in peaceful co-existence. Much of what he taught and wrote has been patently perverted, with the sole exception of the sofie movement, whose teachings have patently remained the most constant and original of all the Muslim traditions? Similarly Christianity and Buddhism have been revised edited and updated? Esoteric Christians could have been very easily mistaken for Buddhists? In fact, the born again teaching/reap what you sow and the sins of the fathers will be visited on their children, could apply just as well to reincarnation, as the so called in the flesh resurrection?
All the great religious tradition had founders who regularly practised mind stilling meditation. This was the source of their apparent wisdom and easily accessed by almost anyone, [except very small children and the criminally insane,] if they also would access the same eternal wisdom. It does no harm and many returned soldiers will agree that it can do a lot of good, particularly those suffering from post trauma distress etc. And don't knock something you've never ever tried least we begin to believe/suspect; that for some reason, you can't? Rhrosty.