How come a law passed in another country over 400 years ago has any influence in Australia today?

It seems to me that, if the situation is as reported, then "speaking from the grave" now includes speaking from an irrelevant, forgotten past.

If only our politicians had spines, they would ensure that ancient voodoo foreign laws affecting Australia and Australians get parliamentary review routinely and thoroughly.

Memo My Turnbull: "Given that you advocate a plebiscite as the way forward for social matters such as marriage then do you support holding a plebiscite of all Australian voters on the subjects of (a) full separation of church and state and (b) taxation of churches at state and federal levels? Do you support enactment of legislation which matches the modest Greek example cited in this article? I ask this because I seek to add my voice to that of Max Wallace and the Humanists Association regarding these issues."

To clear up the confusion around the Christian church and tax, it seems it would be better to make it the official state religion that is supported by a compulsory 1-2% tax on all citizens like they have in Denmark and other very successful countries.

I have no time for "humanists", but I agree that there should be no tax breaks for churches; particularly the activist ones like the Uniting Church and the Anglican Church, who are continually sticking their noses into government policy on border protection and other matters which are no business of theirs. They have become political.

The same applies to charities and NGO's. Did you know that a "charity" can claim tax concessions whether or not it actually dispenses a single cent to any cause, thanks to a High Court judgement? There is at least one such organisation which busybodys itself 'instructing' governments where they should be placing foreign aid. No official credentials, of course, and it is not known if government takes any notice of them.

Why should Australian taxpayers be funding job-creating schemes for activists whose causes they may vehemently oppose?

Why don't you approve of "activist" organisations, ttbn?

What possible excuse can there be for advocating that organisations with opinions be penalised for expressing them?

Will you next advocate banning of political parties and installation of a one-party state?

Or, perhaps, imprisonment for those who disagree with you?

I subscribe to the quaint notion that a vibrant and fair community has at its core an acceptance of all points of view, on all subjects, without exception, as well as to sue and to be sued if they don't comply with society's rules, ie the law of the land, as equals with us all and alongside other organisations.

Don't you?

I agree with Brian Morris Max!

But particularly, when a so called religious organisation can and does operate commercial business ventures, a rent roll, laundry or dry cleaning, a bottle shop?

With voluntary unpaid or underpaid staff; and in direct competition to other conventional business operations that are both obliged to pay tax and minimum wages!

Let them declare all income and current outgoings, starting with the very next new financial year, including salary/stipend entitlements and collected fees, offsetting repairs and refurbishments! And accompanied by normal tax invoices, kept as proof on outgoing recurrents/legitimate operational expenditure!

The only exception? That collected on the plate on sundays/observed holy day!

And obtain immediate, ready willing and able compliance, by threatening to backdate retrospective enabling legislation?

This risible rubbish has been going on for far too long!
Alan B.

Oh dear a humanist banging on about a churches 'tax'break. The faithful giving to churches have already paid tax on the money. Unlike the 'rationalist'faith people of rational faith give of their own earnings rather than sucking the public purse. I would imagine compared with the humanist ngo schemes and the billions scammed by gw alarmist it would be small bickies we are taliking about. Also look at the billions given to 'secular education'often with very poor outcomes compared to much less given to private schools who generally have far better outcomes for their buck. Max claims to be a rationalist although with no real moral basis to make his ridulous assertions and the failure of his faith to prove a tiny bit rational I suspect his conclusions come more from hatred than reason.

Ms Moore concludes 'Churches don't receive special treatment'. This is Outright Denial.

Max Wallace , you are a polite Person.

Over the past 30 years the rapid rise of 'Church' owned Retail Charities has resulted in the loss of many thousands of small Australian business'.

Most of these employed only one or two people but not only did they become unemployed , they lost their business , which would have been their 'Superannuation"

How did they lose ?

The Opposition paid no taxes , got grants , free labour through 'Work for the Dole' and ' Community Service' orders.

They are also able to pay their staff by taking advantage of special Tax arangments for themselves and their paid Employees.

Those 'retail' organisations are just another business and should be treated accordingly

Aspley,
The problem with that argument is that not al those charity shops are church owned. Many are nothing to do with churches.

Nor are they "just another business", as unlike other businesses they are set up to raise funds for a community purpose.

However I think you're right about the Work for the Dole scheme being the reason why there are so many of them. I'm wondering how many of the "lost" businesses would still be there if the government had decided to prioritise getting people into real work instead.

The kind of crazy that Runner brings to this forum is a sight to behold. Someone check to see if he has a safe return badge on.

@progressive pat "members of the Danish National Church pay an additional 0.4% to 1.5% church tax. The rate depends on the municipality. While the church is a state institution, the church tax does not count toward the maximum 59% marginal tax, and one can be exempted from paying this tax by opting out of being a member of the state church."

Which is not something we can do here, I pay more tax and the government gives it to religious groups. I wonder how much the pastors of these churches are being paid?

Get a grip JohnBenettsalloneword. I was referring to all organisations receiving tax breaks who are acting outside their core business, religion or charity, by sticking their noses into politics. That is why I singled out the Uniting Church and the Anglican Church, which are both serial meddlers in public policy. They do not seem aware that church and state are separate in Australia. It's OK for individuals to form ideas based on their religious beliefs, but not organisations gouging taxpayers' money. I don't take kindly to stupid questions - brighten up.

ttbn,
Separation of church and state does not mean the state should curtail the activities of churches. Speaking out against evil wherever they encounter it is part of churches' core business; they are inherently political even though they are not party political.

If churches are getting taxpayers' money, it's because the government has contracted them to provide a service. I for one would prefer it if the government provided the service themselves, but that idea doesn't seem to appeal to those on the right.

Max Wallace sounds like atheist Marxist.

@Diedrich not sure what your point is can you comment on the issue rather than the messager?

I think this is appropriate:

“I have come to think of the export of ‘democracy’ as the contemporary equivalent of what missionaries have always done in the interest of conquering and occupying the ‘uncivilized’ world on behalf of the powers that be. I have said that the ‘church’ invented the concept of conversion by any means, including torture and killing of course, as doing the victims a big favor, since it was in the interest of ‘saving’ their immortal souls. It is now called, ‘democratization’ - Rita Corriel"

The tax exempt status of church and other so-called not-for-profits in this day and age is ridiculous, they are businesses in all but name, tax 'em and our national debt plummets.

Runner - you talk of morality when you have none yourself, you like your church are the ultimate hypocrites
Geoff

To some extent I agree. The same logic should be applied to greenie organisations.

No one every says what taxes the church should be paying! Land tax? Income tax, (on clergy paid at $12 an hour for a 48 hour week?) Clergy actually pay income tax on their stipend. On what else are they to pay tax? The land they hold, land given for a specific purpose which cannot be sold and must be returned to the state and therefor has no economic value? Offerings on a Sunday morning to support their parish and pay for maintenance of historic buildings, power, and water bills with hopefully enough over to pay the rector. The largest myth in the universe is that the church in Australia is rich!

'Runner - you talk of morality when you have none yourself, you like your church are the ultimate hypocrites
Geoff'

And you Geoff with no moral basis to draw from display much more hatred than reason.

In partial answer to Jon R, here are a few obligations that churches avoid. Others might care to add to the list - it would be a long one.

First, and for many reasons, each entity claiming religious purpose should be required to be incorporated under Australian laws and to keep proper accounts and records and to comply with standards of governance as apply to every other corporate entity in the country.

Second, I agree that a good argument can be made on social welfare grounds for tax exemptions for certain bodies. I propose that exemptions of this type be available only to record-keeping, auditable entities which provide annual returns to relevant authorities, chief of which is the ACNC - The Australian Charities and Not-For-Profits Commission. All other and non-complying bodies should be made responsible for taxation of various classes, whether religious or non-religious.

Somebody raised an argument along the lines of "income tax has already been paid by parishioners, so their donations to their church should not be taxed again". What crap this is! I use tax-paid money that to purchase bread, milk, my home, my car and my entertainment, my clothes and indeed everything I spend it on except for registered charities and then only for certain defined purposes. My suppliers again pay tax on their business profits and on many of their business expenses. So what? This is a non-argument.

Consider also tax in the form of land tax, council rates and related. There are plenty of ugly church buildings which deserve no public funding on social or aesthetic grounds. Blanket exemptions are entirely unjustified.

If we're talking about income tax, local churches typically spend everything they earn. As such, even if they were considered taxable entities, they would have zero taxable income and pay zero income tax.

So as far as income tax is concerned, the whole argument is pointless.

Trav,

The issue is also whether the donations to the church, greens etc should be tax free.

Trav's attempt to steer this discussion towards only the local church is irrelevant.

Churches of all styles have amassed a very substantial percentage of this nation's treasure and daily open new commercial ventures in the forms of health, housing, religious, land speculation, property development, welfare, investment and employment ventures, far removed from the Sunday plate or a tithe.

To pretend that "local churches" are the subject of this discussion is either mischievous at best or an attempt at fraudulent and misleading conduct at worst. Suburban churches are merely the local offices of some very large and profitable capitalist ventures; very small tips of very large icebergs.

Of course churches,as members of Australian society, should be required to incorporate, register, provide financial records and pay their share of tax.

Besides which, even the claim that local churches are poor, if made, would be nonsense because their financial situation is shielded from any form of public scrutiny or regulatory accounting.

Only a fool would believe that churches do not attract pigs to the trough, in like manner that churches have been demonstrated by any number of enquiries in recent years to have harboured organised rings of paedophiles.

Churches!

Can't trust them with our kids or our money.