The arguments in favour of the "motion" are held together by guileless twaddle. Generalities and over-simplifications prove the author to be unskilled and unsuited to the job of furthering religious influence through the surreptitious avoidance of taxation. The evangelisation that accompanies the charitable work is therefore at no cost to the church but is geared directly to the creation of more faithful that more "donations" can be collected.

The real measure of their charity would be revealed if they ever gave freely to assist the disadvantaged without expecting anything in return........the attention and allegiance of the captive, grateful and gullible audience who, given life-saving charity would feel an intense obligation to please their benefactors.

It seems, even in god's realm. there's no such thing as a free lunch.

Raising comparisons between a sports sausage sizzle and the church left me gasping a little. Are we being talked down to here by an authority so accustomed to being accorded credibility that he cares not who his readership is? The gall that permeates Shelton's intention indeed left me somewhat breathless momentarily. Being chairman of the Australian Christian Lobby and treating in such dismissive manner any complaint about separation of church and state, I think, is deserving of an accusation of typical christian hypocrisy as well.

We read that for hundreds of years the promotion of religion was seen as beneficial by governing authorities. Yet, and I'm sure Shelton knows this as well, history reveals that governments and royalty governed mainly with the approval of the church for millennia. Such a facile reference to history for authority condemns him out of his own mouth. Religion drenched every aspect of societies and ruled people's lives. This has proven to be inimical to an increasingly educated society and hence the loosening of religious tentacles today.

Extropian1,
Well and eloquently said.

Extropian1 - As TheAtheist says well put comments.

I'm humbled by the kind words of appreciation from peers and colleagues and thank them. One is keenly aware of the quality of the contributions by members.

In the issue of separation of church and state, Lyle Shelton occupies a parlous position as representative of a lobby organisation created to overcome such separation. Other contributors have mentioned this and I acknowledge them.

When the churches are prepared to have their finances subject to the same tax rules as everyone else then Shelton might make a much more valid case. The special treatment demanded by them makes a mockery of any protests of unfair or unreasonable criticism.