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.