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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.