As I see it, the most revealing line in the entire article is this one:

"If it taxed churches, the church would certainly be funding the state, which would arguably be a breach of our constitutional separation of church and state."

A wonderfully breathtaking assertion from the representative of a religious organization that is established for the sole purpose of influencing the conduct of the State.

"ACL, established in 1995, operates in the Federal Parliament, and in all the state and territory parliaments, and is neither party partisan nor denominationally-aligned."

http://www.acl.org.au/about/

From this it may be inferred that ACL is independent of Party affiliation, therefore only interested in pursuing its own political agenda. And that this agenda is based upon the views of Christians only.

If, in the view of the author, rendering unto Caesar offends the "constitutional separation of church and state", how much more so does direct political, partisan involvement in the processes of government?

Mr Shelton ignores the elephant in the room. When Churchs (i.e. organised religions with top down administrations) run businesses in direct competition with the private sector but do not pay company tax there is a problem. The problem is compounded - literally - when the churches then invest in real estate (as they do in spades) and then do not pay stamp duties, local government rates, land taxes etc etc they deprive society of much needed income and do not contribute to the costs of running society. This is a massive rort and explains why the churches are the biggest real estate proprietors in the nation (and probably the world). They then use this wealth for their many selfish purposes. The non church population are then effectively subsidising organisations with feet of clay (in the opinion of the non believers). This is morally wrong. Perhaps they would like to think about that - the end does not justify the means.

There seems to be a confusion as to where charity begins... you seem to wish it to begin at church rather than at home.

A religion or church is not of itself a charity, nor is that its established purpose.

Here is a thought: what is the total value of all of the property and other assets of Australia's Christian churches?

How many billions?

Now consider Matthew 19: 21-22,

"Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions."

"The idea that churches should be taxed seems to be driven more by a distaste for Christianity by a small minority..."

Or, it could be argued, it is one way of assisting churches as well as the ACL to be less hypocritical and actually to follow Christ's teachings.

WmTrevor _ Quote "The idea that churches should be taxed seems to be driven more by a distaste for Christianity by a small minority"

I believe that statement is wrong, it is more like people who do not believe everything they are told, come to the realization that a charity or church that gets money from businesses it owns or controls and does not use that money for charitable purposes but uses it to gain further profit should be taxed it is called being FAIR, too bad all the people in the world do not believe in that.

"WmTrevor _ Quote..."

Attribution is important, Philip S, the extract I used (hence the quotation marks) is from Lyle Shelton's article. I was merely reflecting it back in an attempt to help him become a 'True Christian™'.

I thought it an act of charity - from an athiest.

Trav,
is there any issue for which the greens can't be held as the scapegoat? Why are they tirelessly dragged in for a ritual slaughter whenever an institution is in the dock. Billy Brag has the quote of the week for me with his, "if you think you're being oppressed as a Christian, try being a socialist!"
If anything this is even more true of greens. Let's get past the stereotypes, we're all different regardless of our loyalties. Let's stick to issues (though I do agree with you about Dawkins and co).

I also agree with Pericles that this is a telling quote:
"If it taxed churches, the church would certainly be funding the state, which would arguably be a breach of our constitutional separation of church and state."
This relates to the point I made above, that it is or should be the responsibility of the state, not the church (which gets rich and influential in the process), to secure the welfare of its citizens. Shelton here unwittingly makes the same point!
Though please, I am not defending the welfare state per se, which is productive of more evils than benefits.
What I am saying is the state should take responsibility for our modern ills, rather than being shepherded by the church.