I appreciate this will turn in to a "CAPSLOCK at 10 paces" in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

But this is a topic I'm genuinely curious about.

Man was designed to breed and hang around till around when the kid was 3 years old then sod off and sow his seed again. I'm sure you evolutionists wouldn't disagree with that. Would you?.

The concept of what we call marriage more or less came about due to tribal law and lack of other breeding options, I'd suggest. They basically divied up the chicks so everyone got one to negate murder and the tribe breaking down to a slaughter.

Our society's concept of marriage has obviously evolved past the historical definition to be based on the Christian version. If you used a celebrant then you had a Pagan ritual, which fundamentally is based on higher power anyway.

My question really is. Why, being an Atheist, did you choose to marry into a monogamous union when really it goes against the concept of Evolution as philosophical concept?.

StG: << Man was designed to breed and hang around till around when the kid was 3 years old then sod off and sow his seed again. I'm sure you evolutionists wouldn't disagree with that. Would you?. >>

Hi StG - as an atheist who accepts Darwinian evolution, I'd certainly disgree with any notion that "Man" was "designed" by anyone or anything.

In answer to your more substantive question, having been married a couple of times I would say that I did so because of my subscription to the notion of romantic love that I learned during my socialisation as a child. Nothing to do with Christian or "Pagan" rituals at all, rather a civil contract that was intended to formalise what we intended to be a permanent and exclusive emotional and sexual relationship.

I really don't understand why we still allow Christians (or other religionists) to interfere in what is essentially a civil contract between two adults.

CJ >>>"Hi StG - as an atheist who accepts Darwinian evolution, I'd certainly disgree with any notion that "Man" was "designed" by anyone or anything"<<<

G'day CJ. "Designed", as in, 'evolved to function as', if that suits ya better?. Bit sensitive though.

Why choose a ritual - which it is - over say, an ACTUAL civil contract through a lawyer?

Monogamous unions are not against evolution as a "philosophical concept". Evolution is more than that though, it's a biological reality.

Monogamous unions appear to be good for the raising of offspring, and throughout history serial monogamous unions were quite common.

'Marriage' predates Christianity and indeed monotheism, probably all societies on earth have a concept of it in some form or other, just the details (rules) change.

As for this: "Man was designed to breed and hang around till around when the kid was 3 years old then sod off and sow his seed again. I'm sure you evolutionists wouldn't disagree with that. Would you?."

You aren't being serious aren't you?

Marriage is designed as a public declaration between a mature man and a woman by promise and concent to each other and to society to engage in acceptable mutual sexual relations and together commit for life to that relationship to give a secure environment to raise a family.

Human society is not a maurding herd but is structured by laws.

Bugsy,

'Marriage' is a societal construct. Monogamy is a choice, it's not a fundamental part of our genetic makeup, IMO.

I don't disagree 'marriage' predates Christianity. But the MODERN western idea of marriage - IMO - is beyond a 'civil agreement'. If that's all a marriage is then why not just do it at a lawyer's. Love and monogamy is an agreement between two people. That doesn't need to be done during a ritual in front of witnesses

StG, you obviously haven't been reading some of the conversations lately.

Not everything is genetics, but you'd be surprised where genetics and society meet. It's a dynamic system, where environment (society) and genetics all play a role and interact with each other, there are no absolutes. Genetics and biology play a role in tendencies and preferences for particular behaviours.

The power of ritual in society is strong, it adds weight to ones actions, such is the power of cultural practices. "Tradition" is a powerful evolutionary force. It helps people make decisions and guides their actions without them having to know everything about what they are doing- it's a cultural heuristic.

Ritual and the recognition by society and your own family that you are pair-bonded may not seem genetic, but it has evolved and been maintained because it has obvious benefits for child rearing and reducing infant mortality rates.

Lastly, sexual selection is most often predicated on female choice. Men that will tend to hang around longer and help to rear the kids are likely to be more attractive, that it's so often the case they don't shows the maintainence of deception in mating behaviours.

Perhaps if society comes up with something that fills emotional needs just as well, the marriage ritual will fade and be replaced.

More to the point divorce is often the selfishness of individuals who have not learn't to control themselves and so have to redefine God's wonderful gift to mankind. Usually it is people who have failed in keeping their word that now want to redefine the most healthy environment for children to grow up in (with a loving father and mother). Face it guys, the author of marriage (God) has again proven a lot smarter than our social engineers whose experiments have led to an increase in violence, child abuse and selfishness. The reason many atheist choose marriage is because deep down most know that every person desires a relationship with someone they can trust, share with and love. Wired in every human is the adamic nature which produces selfishness and unfaithfulness. Thankfully many are smart enough to resist temporary gratification for the good of themselves, families and society. Often those who don't want to accept their Creators design poison the rest of society.

I think you got the boot on the wrong foot there StG.

When I was a young [about 16] horseman, a wise mature horse breeder lady neighbour was teaching me how to serve a mare with my stalion, & giving me a few hints on life, at the same time.

It went like this. "Now you watch. This mare is in season, & wants his seed. She'll worry the daylights out of him, until she gets it".

A little later. "OK she's got what she wants, now he'd better piss off. She'll kick the sh1t out of him, if he keeps annoying her now".

She went on, "so now young Hasbeen, you've seen how it works. We women are no different, to that mare. When some cute young chick comes after your seed, don't kid your self, putting all sorts of great meaning to the deed. Once she's got what she wanted, you're about as important to her, as your stalion is to that mare".

"Of course, if you're feeding her, & her brood, she may keep you around a bit longer, with a sniff or two, but only till she finds a better one".

Over 50 years later, I'm sure she was right. It's not the bloke shooting through after 3 years, it's her , giving him the flick, when his space becomes more desirable than his usefulness. Perhaps a bit more than 3 years today, now modern kids eat so much.

It's only when a religion gives him control of her, & what he believes are his kids, that it has any effect. But, now watch that religion, when it gives her the chance to shoot through with his kids, & his money, as does christianity today, & you'll be watching one die.

STG, What a pile of dung.

Marriage did not start with Christianity and won't end with it. Humans are naturally monogomous and the belief in God has very little to do with marriage stability.

I as an athiest got married and in doing so celebrated our committment to raise a family together. My wife's family wanted a church wedding, and the pastor was amienable in spite of my beliefs.

A church wedding is more to do with tradition (as does the white dress, wedding cake etc) than belief.

Rightio. So guys, can I just clear one thing up?.

This is an O-PIN-I-ON. NOWHERE have I said I'm right. I even believe I use terms like 'IMO', which, for those that don't know, means, 'in my opinion'. I used 'I'm curious', and I STATED I agree that 'marriage' didn't start with Christianity.

Take time to comprehend and how about we have an adult discussion for a change without going on the attack?. Wouldn't that be nice, for a change?.

Love and commitment are not confined to the religious among us otherwise religious people would never get divorced and obviously they do.

There are many species of animal who mate for life. Marriage is a human construct just as laws are human constructs. They evolve for a reason - most people comprehend the need for families to be suppored in every possible way in whatever shape or form those families may take.

Selfishness is the key issue here. Also sometimes love dies in some relationships - a sad reality.

This is a disingenuous topic and generalises about evolution (of which we are still learning) from someone who obviously does not even believe in the concepty.

What is it exactly you want out this 'discussion' StG?

Did you want an actual answer to something or an opportunity to tell us your opinion?

The answer to your final question in the OP, was that marriage and monogamy are not against evolution, neither is polygamy, polyandry, polygyny nor any of a multitude of mating schemes.

What else you you want?

Stg,

Several statements were taken as fact in your post and built on to reach your ridiculous conclusion.

The following statement is wrong:

"Man was designed to breed and hang around till around when the kid was 3 years old then sod off and sow his seed again. "

Anyone with more than a year 3 knowledge of evolution would know that for higher order animals that take longer to mature, evolution favours those who support their children until they are capable of taking care of themselves.

As Humans take longer than a decade, the evolutionary perogative is for longer term relationships.

So marriage is a product of evolution and not in spite of it.

StG,
I'm more an agnostic. I got married twice in a church merely to be compliant.
I refer you to an essay by Gore vidal that I posted here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3094

It talks rather nicely to your topic.

Well Stg,

I never got married. My kids would more than likely be considered 'bastards' had they been born in another era.

But, I chose to enter into my de facto arrangement, and have children, as I love my partner. See, it's not very hard to explain.

Incidentaly, the government changed the laws recently, and people who wish to live together and not be financially tied for life by the government must explicitly opt-in for this priveledge...

http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/agd.nsf/Page/Families_NewDeFactoPropertyRegime#d5

ie, even if you don't want to be married, the government has decided you planned and are responsible for any live-in partner for the rest of their life, and if you don't like that, you better see a lawyer.

The law equates the rights of de facto partners (including same sex partners) with married couples as to property settlement, superannuation splitting and spouse maintenance. Whether they intended this or not. There is no such option of not getting married, you have to explicitly pay the legal fees to opt out. You are married by default, whether you believe in the concept or not.

It's something to do with wanting gay people to have the same rights, but not wanting to allow them to marry. Or maybe it's a feminist conspiracy, but you'd have to ask antiseptic.

I read an article where it stated that if 2 18yos lived together for a couple of years and broke up, the inheritance of one is available for the other to claim. Doesn't make much sense to me. Or if two 50 year olds want to keep their financial independence, they must know about the law and get a common law contract if they wish to live together.

I reckon the government should just butt out and accept that people who don't get married chose not to. Those who wanted to be protected by the marriage laws and have the state recognise their marriage should get married. Pretty simple. But then I suppose they would have to let gay people get married Shock horror.

Dear Stg,

When you consider that we're all born into
relationships - starting with the maternal one,
often held up as an ideal form of love - it seems
only natural that people generally want to share their
life with a partner. Love and affection are beneficial
throughout life, and people know this innately.
Marriage isn't compulsory, of course, and it may be
likely to occur less frequently in the future, but it's
a fair bet people will continue to fall in love and
try to find harmony together just as they've always done.

Dear Stg - you ask -
Why marry in a ritual ceremony instead of a registry
office if you're an atheist? Well, at a guess - I'd say
it's about people wanting the event to be something
special. They've found what they need to nurture their
souls, to give life meaning - that special someone -
and they want their ceremony of commitment to have the
wondrous, mysterious element in it as well. There are no
hard and fast rules for why people chose to do what they
do - I just think that the sense of contentment, of
sharing, of oneness with another human being is perhaps
the most elegant of human feelings. Your souls are merged,
and all the world's your paradise. Why wouldn't you want
the ceremony to be as special as your relationship is?

Stg, I wasn't really an athiest when I got married in a Catholic church some years ago, I was more of a skeptic really.

This church was built across the road from our home when I was a child and we used to play on the building site!
So it had great sentimental value when I came to want to get married there years later.

Yes, I was christened a Catholic, but had long since left the fold.
I did still want to get married there though.

The priest, even though he knew I was a lapsed Catholic was still quite happy to marry us and take our money for the service.

So I guess you could have called both us and the priest hypocrits!

It is no one else's business where anyone wants to get married or not as far as I am concerned.

My kids are bastards, officially and unofficially.

Jane Fonda (I think it was) said “My husband said he wanted to sleep with a red head, so I dyed my hair red”. Says it all really, who knew she was so deep.

I give men a lot of credit, they love that three year old, they hang around. Sometimes emotions beat hormones?

Marriage… we humans like are ceremonies to bind us to something. It has its place if you don’t stop and overthink it.

I’m of the “religious underachievers” myself. I didn’t want a wedding, I didn’t want to wear a pavlova. We went to the courthouse, recited some unexpected vows and went home. Lovely. Still is.

Houel, you are awesome.[smile]

As I understand it marriage was so that children were born in a relationship with certain inheritance rights, etc.
There are people who do get married even so due to circumstances no sexual intercourse can occur.
Basically see a marriage as a civil contract with the other partner until death do us part, but do not try to be the one causing the death of the other!
When I married my first wife, the pledge, at the registry office, had a considerable impact upon me. Nothing to do with religion. I oppose divorce but circumstances prevailed that I divorced my first wife. So I did with my second wife.
My third wife at 67 wasn’t particularly a woman who was considering returning to child bearing capacity. So, we didn’t get married for any reason of having children but just it basically means to say to other blokes “Keep your hands off”. After about 10 years my wife is telling me my youth is fainting away, I am too polite to tell her she is turning into the wicked witch. No child support to keep me in the marriage either but still I am neither departing from earth or from the marriage. Just think where could I get for free a cleaner, cook, iron lady, coffee maker, nagger, ok forget the last bit.
I explain to her that she should be glad that I keep her fit doing all the house chores as I could be selfish to do it myself and let her then grow old, ugly and being unfit.
The secret to a marriage is to do your own thing but pretend to the other how much you care. Reap the benefits and enjoy it while pretending it is all a burden.
Without a marriage certificate the horror of litigation would not be there as to deter her to find another joker to do it to her.
Then again my wife has her free chauffeur, carpenter, secretary, plumber, electrician, gardener, slave, roofer, and on and on it goes. Marriage is a civil contract to barting each others services.

It would appear that the church which used to desired as a traditional wedding venue even for non christians is even losing this draw card:

http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/lifematters/brides-in-rush-to-registry-20091017-h22y.html

When society fails even to pay lip service, the church will completely lose its relevance in today's society.

The next move is to cut off its tax exemption status.

Shadow Minister,
When was the last time you examined Church business and income? Most churches run at a loss and their expenses rely on the good will of people working for charity. Churches are no different to social Clubs except they have no membership fees or income from gamboling. All members pay taxes on their own income and sacrifice to support their social community. They are a charitable organisation run by families members to support each other and do not make a profit from services or sales. Your ignorance of Church function and members association and role in society reveals both your ignorance and hostile attitude to the Church.

Leaving church love or tradition out.

I actually was under the belief that the man stayed around until the child was about 7 hence the seven year itch.

However way back then you only lived until 21-25 if you were lucky and one woman could not look after more than one very young child at the same time if nomadic. So survival of species changes over time. Now survival is easier in a union.

Not sure of average life span when marriage was introduced but still would have been young. Living until 80-90 is a very new human concept so perhaps 2 marriages, or unions, may become the norm..if not already.

Partner 1 for breeding
Partner 2 for economics and companionship.

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Mr. REID.-I suppose that money could not be paid to any church under this Constitution?
Mr. BARTON.-No; you have only two powers of spending money, and a church could not receive the funds of the Commonwealth under either of them.
[start page 1773]
END QUOTE
.
As CONSTITUTIONALIST I take the view that any kind of religious taxation exemption is unconstitutional.
Why indeed should anyone who as like a church may provide the same kind of service (without religion involved) be denied tax exemptions?
.
Either all have the same exemption or none at all.

Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka,
Any profit organisation run by paid staff is not a church but may be organised by the members of Church and fills in taxation forms the same as any charitable non church organisation. Members may patronise other members businesses but normal taxation apply.

A church is the members of a faith that meet to extol the character of that faith and encourage and support each other in their lives. Each one of them pay taxes on their income, and they neither supply services or goods as expense to others for payment. Churches do have incoroperations that are accountable to the governments as charity where services and support are given by professionals and these organisations fill in income and expenditure reports. Churches have organisations that minister to the poor, depressed, unemployed etc and are very sucessful in raising these peoples lives back into society as self sufficient members of society.

The introduction of this line shows the selfish and mean attitude of those that persue this line. Because you see someone giving clothes,moral encouragement and food to the poor you want to tax their charity. Grow up!

Philo,

"Most churches run at a loss and their expenses rely on the good will of people working for charity. Churches are no different to social Clubs except they have no membership fees or income from gamboling"

If what you said was true, the churches would not be affected by losing their tax exempt status as there would be little to no profit. They could even register as a charity or non profit organisation.

This might be true on the small scale, but the churches have managed to accumulate vast wealth and land, the income of which is tax free and which is used mostly to expand their influence.

"According to BRW, if religion were a corporation, it would be one of the biggest and fastest-growing in the country, accounting for more than $23 billion in revenue in 2005, employing hundreds of thousands of people."

http://blogs.theage.com.au/executive-style/managementline/2006/06/30/australiasbiggestgiversand.html

Shadow Minister,
Your meanness towards compassion is deplorable. If the love and good will of people were left to people like you and to secular governments the country would descend into third world conditions.

People like you have no compassion toward the poor, the disposessed and vunerable. Try doing work among these people for the love of them and try assisting the outcast for no pay and see what you can be taxed on. The church is not a building; it is merely a centre of operation where the church meet(church means assembly of people).

Philo wrote: Shadow Minister,
Your meanness towards compassion is deplorable. If the love and good will of people were left to people like you and to secular governments the country would descend into third world conditions.

Dear Philo,

The welfare state in the secular governments of Scandinavia has provided a high standard of living, a smaller gap between rich and poor and greater political freedom than any non-secular government has provided. The welfare state that recognised the duty of the state to provide medical care and a basic standard of living for all its citizens is a consequence of the secular state. In the United States at this time President Obama is trying to reform the health system to bring it into line with the more advanced welfare states. A large part of the opposition comes from fundamentalist Christian churches.

The Muslim theocracies such as Saudi Arabia have a very unequal distribution of wealth. The same existed in the Christian theocracies before the enlightenment which challenged Christian hegemony.

In Nigeria Christian churches are still murdering witches. Helen Ukpabio in the Liberty Gospel church has fueled witchcraft accusations and persecutions. Boko Haram, an Islamic sect, has beheaded police officers and civilian to push Sharia law. Nigeria is a third world state with immense riches. Its population will continue to live in misery until it is a secular state which can control the religious nuts.

Poor Philo. Try reading the Max Wallace book, 'The Purple Economy', to understand the scope and extent of the religious scam and tax break business.

Only about the size of Rudd's recent GFC giveaway, each year, is skimmed off to support church corruption, to say nothing of the buggery and rape that goes on, still denied at the highest levels in churches across the world. God's work, no doubt, since he moves in mysterious ways.

And try to get your head around the Pope owning casinos, not personally of course, but through his pal St. Peter and his bookeeping staff.

And try digging down a few levels into some local 'good works' people, where ever you are. A 'legitimate' church surrounded by Inc. bodies, and private non-profit companies, a little further out, for profit companies, all feeding off the tax dollars through, say, a workplacement firm, then an advertising form, a TV promo firm, and a host of tax dodgy 'caring' institutions that compel Xtian views on their long suffering charges.

There is not sufficient space here to detail the scope of the religious scams that abound in Australia, under the auspices of 'caring for the poor folk'.

Now, of course, genuine 'good works' can be done too. But these can be done without the involvement of any religion. The sort of use taxes could be put to, if only we all paid our share.

Our Church has just finished a Holiday programme run free of charge for 120 children in our local community. Should we close this programme and force families to send their children to state funded programmes and pay fees? My wife works in one of the state funded programmes in a nearby community where fees and wages are paid. So tell me where is the taxes the Church should pay come from?

Dear Philo,

What was the nature of the Holiday programme? Did it involve missionising the children? The state is already subsidising missionising by the School Chaplaincy Program where chaplains, generally fundamentalists from Scripture Union in Queensland, are sent into the school system. Taxes from all of us pay for pushing religious nonsense onto the little innocents. If the Holiday programme does involve missionising I would rather send my children (all in their 40s and fifties now so it's hypothetical) to a paid program rather than a free one with missionising.

From the untaxed income of the overall church, and its associated business enterprises, many of which compete agianst legitimate businesses, who do at least make a pretence of paying their share of taxes.

Simple.

I assume, and I could be wrong, that you are a Xtian. The nature of Xtianity is such that it does nothing for nothing.

The 'free holiday' work is an extension of Xtian evangelism, designed to recruit souls for Jesus and build the power and numbers of the church.

And if the children all all 'believers', then it serves to cement the church into their lives while they are young, and impressionable.

A business, but not quite as open and honest as a business that runs on a more open commercial basis.

Accessing young children who are 'unchurched' or 'non believers' is the underlying role of these holiday activities.

As with the camps run by various para-church organisations.

The infiltration of the Hillsong Shine-Strength programmes into state schools is a typical misuse of adult power and Xtian evangelising.

Materials paid for through untaxed income, by those of us who do not support any religions, Xtianity or otherwise, but whose taxes are directed towards them whether or not we like it.

Philo,

I assume your pathetic and feeble minded personal attack on me, is fuelled by an inability to provide any counter argument.

I am sure that there are plently of civic minded people contributing a welcome action to help others, and providing a compassionate facade on organised religion. However, it is the secular state that provides most of the welfare assistance to those that need it.

If the Church truly was a charitable organisation or even not for profit, they could work within the other existing tax regimes and not pay any tax.

However, the reality is that the majority of the church business is neither charitable nor non profit focused, and the terrible toll in human life due to their campaign against the use of condoms in Africa probably out weighs any good done.

I would appreciate any cogent argument as to why I am mistaken, but a small minded extrapolation from your church group does not cut the mustard.

Shadow Minister,
You will cluch at anything to make your point. What does condoms in Africa have to do with Churches in Australia paying tax? Perhaps it is because 30% of Church members support the education and food programmes to orphan children in third world countries by World Aid programmes - World Vision, Compassion Aid etc.

Now is your opportunity to demonstrate what you are personally doing to raise the standards of the poor and orphaned.

One member of the church I attend runs a chaplancy programme in the local State school two days per week. She is a trained teacher and educational counsellor. She consults with concerned parents and makes recomendations on training and discipline for problem children. There is no religious aspect to her conversations either with children or parents. Reports given to the South Australia body last year from parents commended her work and she remains employed under the government scheme.

The Church pastor and several other volunters from the church take children during lunch breaks once a week for landcare, sport etc. Also bullies are taken on bonding camps, the childrens fees also funded by the chaplancy programme. I can say none of those children attend the church, but the principal has congratulated the boys on their changes of attitude.

Tell us what your voluntary work is and if you organisation currently pays tax!

The Church holiday programme was organised by the senior principal of a local primary school of about 500 pupils and several trained teachers employed in State Government and private schools. The theme of this programme was "The mad scientists" so dressed in lab uniforms they and the children porformed experiments on manys different things and concluded things have design. They also played sports and meals and drinks were supplied free of charge; funded by money set aside from church finances. Of course you want tax on this money!

Philo, you obviously are not a person of the RULE OF LAW but of what is in your view to your interest. The Framers of the Constitution made clear that Churches could not be funded from taxation and so neither be given tax exemption and that is the RULE OF LAW!
It has absolutely nothing to do with if some church organization happen to be doing the right thing, because most of them are in it for the money!
Some 40-years ago while working in Germany I discovered that they had deducted 10% of my gross wages for the Catholic Church, well I made clear I couldn’t give a hood about the Catholic Church and demanded my money, and I got it!
.
There are so many not-for-profit organizations where most of the money is syphoned off that that the few who are honest are simply not worth to keep the system going.
.
Lets make it very clear that for example the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 provides for religious exemption for not voting but for other having to vote. Well, I challenged it on constitutional ground in tow cases and the court ruled in my favour against the Crown. As I made clear the Commonwealth would be in breach of s.116 of the constitution to give religious exemptions unless it included also atheist, etc to be exempt.
.
Likewise if church charities can get tax exemption then non-believers should likewise have this but you find this is not as such applicable, regardless they may do a better job then many religious organizations do.
You may have an issue with the RULE OF LAW but do not use this to vent your anger on others who post comments merely because you don’t like their comments.

Philo: << The theme of this programme was "The mad scientists" so dressed in lab uniforms they and the children porformed experiments on manys different things and concluded things have design. >>

You mean it was actually a proselytising exercise in disguise? Is the school principal also a member of your congregation?

If so, and the school in question is a State primary school, s/he should be sacked.

This principal should indeed be sacked! But of course this kind of long-term indoctrination by stealth takes place in many state schools. At my kids' school, grade seven is a 100% Christian zone, while the principal coordinates and runs the RI! The fundamentalist chaplain warns his charges about fire and brimstone (I had this from the deputy), and programmes like "Shine" (designed to develop the celebrated Christian virtues: meekness and intellectual quiescence) are ushered in as salubrious and ostensibly disinterested--there are extracurricular camps that the little princesses can attend later, when all such pretentious garb is cast off and the whole rude beast is revealed. The Shine programme comes at a price by the way--funded both by the government and parental charges.
All this in our state schools where, as Philo reveals, secularism and reason are ridiculed.
It leaves me breathless with rage! The despicable defenders of all this are a mob of deceitful, cringing, ignorant and dangerous lemmings. Avast! You reprehensible pied pipers!

CJ Morgan,
1. The holiday programme was run by volunteers from the Church and was held in the Church buildings and grounds. The parents brought their children to the Church and registered them for the holiday club. The programme was not promoted in the school!

2. The school Principal that has employed the chaplin does not attend any Church and is as far as I know not of any Christian faith. It is just that she respects the professionalism of her staff and witnesses the benifits the children receive by the programme.

Again it shows the anti-social meanness of heart that you wish to sack Principals who run programmes to improve childrens experience.

Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka,
What other countries do as far as taxation is concerned is irrelavent here, those Governments are responsible to their citizens. Years ago while employed in a Union site I had to contribute unvoluntarily to the Workers Union fees from my wage otherwise I did not have a job. They were of a political persuasion I did not support.

Our Church receives no Government funding to promote the faith, or run programmes. Tell us what taxes we should pay beside the personal taxes of employed staff of the church?

It would be good, Philo, if the religious community paid their share of taxes and council rates.

It would be good if the pastor/vicar/minister was not able to sneak away from income taxes by having up to $60k taken as a tax free fringe benefit.

The problem with school principals, at least in Qld, is that their union has a clear policy supporting secular public education, which they ignore as they promote the free and open access to evangelisers and proselytisers in our public schools.

There has been no work undertaken by DEEWR, the Gillard body that dishes out $165m of our taxes, tax free, to fund these generally unqualified chaplains (I do appreciate your spelling of 'chaplin' though Philo, very keen sense of humour there) to measure for any improvement in schools attributed to having 'chaplains' in place.

Let's be honest, our schools are so poorly organised, as 19th century factories and penal institutes, that it is no wonder our children find the adults that run schools to be so 'unbelievable' and barely credible. Inject an 'independent' person into the mix whose role is to recruit for Jesus, by appearing to be pleasant and trustworthy, and of course, some students will respond positively.

But the redundant Telstra worker, an old tub thumper unionist who never thinks of any gods, never mind God, but who has a cheery character and a willingness to listen and be friendly, will have the same effect.

The organisations that run school chaplains are rubbing their hands with glee as they lobby Rudd for a fully funded chaplain in every school, at a cost of at least $60k a year, naturally just enough to avoid income tax, and an increased access to public school students.

There is absolutely nothing noble going on in schools with chaplains that could not be achieved through the P&C and a few caring parents, be they Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Sikh, Buddhist, agnostics or atheists.

The benefit of having non-Christians in public schools is that there will be no evangelising going on for ulterior motives.

The Blue Cross,
No evangelising going on for ulterior motives! What? You are running an emotive champion campaign here to change opinion and educate in your views. If you can do better I suggest you apply for the position on the credentials of your past community service record.

Philo,

Once again you have failed to provide any argument as to why the church should get tax exemption.

Both the Taliban and Hamas use community service and welfare to shore up public support and financing for their organisations, and while these localised community efforts are staffed by dedicated compassionate people, the larger organisation as a whole is far from benign.

As you have yet to describe what contribution you make (if any) I will only mention that we contribute financially to several charities and get involved in fund raising. These charities as non profit organisations pay no tax.

As the church does make substantial profit, they could not work within the non profit regime. Some of the funding goes to fund extremely harmful programmes such as those that try and prevent condom use. So some of the money that goes to the chuch is killing people far away.

Shadow Minister,
It is good that you give and support tax free charities. The church is not a business having an ABN for charging or selling goods or services to the public. I give and support several charities myself as well as being as a volunteer on the administrative board of two. I give to my church funds after paying tax on my income and sanction the use of gifts the church receives for maintenance of its programmes and expenses. I suggest you research the income and expenses of a local church in your area and determine upon what they should pay tax. Then report it here.

A quote "A young Zambian woman, economist Dambisa Moyo, has written a book called Dead Aid. She does not say all Overseas Aid (OAid) is wrong, she is engaged in some grass roots aid organisations herself, but she is very clear that the large amounts of OAid given through things like ‘Live Aid’, through government handouts and the UN have, in fact, created more, rather than less, poverty in Africa.
She states "In the past fifty years, more than $1 trillion in development-related aid has been transferred from rich countries to Africa. Has this assistance improved the lives of Africans? No. In fact, across the continent, the recipients of this aid are not better off as a result of it, but worse—much worse."
She is very clear that corruption at government level is the crux of the problem along with lazy governments. Governments who rely on OAid rather than design programs to get their nation out of the reliance on OAid mentality.

..We need to be far more discerning about glib support for sound good platitudes like 'Stand up for Poverty", "Make Poverty History" "Millennium Development Goals" that, according to Dambisa and a growing number of other discerning people, are actually make things worse rather than better."

Philo... an 'emotive campaign', eh?

I am well aware that what I say will not change minds, and I do not seek to, knowing how inflexible we all can be.

I merely point out the danger of allowing religions such tax-free status, when there is scant evidence that 'being religious' has any connection to the 'good works' being done.

Funnily enough, I did apply for a job as a chaplain, or is that 'Chaplin' Philo?, but was knocked back because only Xtians can be school chaplains in Qld.

I also applied for a job as a 'school mentor' under the 'everyone loves Tim Costello' World Vision plan to infiltrate and recruit in public schools, but was again told that only Xtians have the required skills to be school mentors to 'the kiddies'.

Funny, eh? How Xtians believe only they have 'the power', when there is so little evidence of a Christian world view actualy benefitting the world to date.

But I am surprised to learn that you know about my extensive community service record.

I do tend to agree with you on the 'pop star' driven campaigns to 'rid the world of poverty', especially when I can see so many churches at the forefront of this claptrap, no doubt raking off a few millions as they pass through the Holy Moula Filters down at the Temple Square.

They seem to mostly be about flogging goods from rich nations and burdening poor ones with more debt, while shonky types get brown bags on the way through.

Far better to engage people in understanding why they are poorer than others, and who makes them so, and why they need to be kept poor, as the Pope likes to ensure so many are for instance... but it would be unfair to single his mob out as the only bad apple in the barrel, of course. Plenty more where he came from.

Philo,

As you are obviously missing the point I am going to trya and use small words:

When I talk of the church I don't mean the stone building with its pitiful congregation, I am talking about the huge business that is the church organisation with a turnover in the region of $23 billion in Australia alone.

If a business does not make a profit, it pays no tax. Niether does a charity or non profit organisation. The reason the Catholic or Anglican churchs shelter behind their tax free status is that their organisations make a very tidy profit, and tjey would rather ship it off shore than contribute to the tax coffers.

I don't give a hoot about what happens at the local church level as it has bggr all to do with the church paying tax on its business interests.

The aid to Africa generally does not go to the corrupt governments, but to the local charities, who on the most part do a lot of good. This is undone by the corrupt govs and evangelical priests spouting on how bad condoms are, resulting in many cases of HIV and subsequent death.