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.

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!

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.

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.

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

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