Boazy fact is far more leaders in the western world step up to the podium and profess love for a God they never believed in.
A far greater crime than being honest.
Yesterday the conservatives house wifes rang in to open line talk back on radio condemning her for? swearing an oath on the Bible!some thing she did not do.
But spin and lies has become the sharpest tool in such groups.

Hi 5 --> Hazza :) indeed mate!

TBC... you obviously don't know me.

Romans 13:1-7 was offered in response to an ATTACK by Benq on the Church and State.. do you expect me to respond with a quote from Bertrand Russell ?

The issue at stake regarding Taxes and the Church is more complex than your simplistic take on the matter.

If Churches engage in business enterprises which are aimed at making a real profit for individuals..I don't have a problem with that being taxed.

But just remember something..next time your son or daughter is strung out on drugs or alchohol that it's good to have a place such as the Salvation Army farm where they can go to recover and be supported at the same time. Who funds such places ? *think*.......

There is no monolithic way of operating among such establishments, and funding arrangements are probably as varying as the number of places, so there is no hard and fast rule. It depends entirely on the arrangement if any with Government, or not.

But I sense you are thinking more of 'income' derived from weekly offerings ? well..that is a DONATION.. freely given... not earned, and not in any way for 'profit', and those who are paid a wage from it, ARE TAXED. It's called 'income tax'... so if you wouldn't mind please step down from your secular pulpit of self-rightousness, and pick on some other mob or be more specific about which group and in what circumstances you do 'pick'.

But at least you did read the scripture...that can't be bad.

Hazza. Exactly. This is ridiculous.

What about her thoughts on politics?.

*waits for the media to ask her about being a republic*

"If Churches engage in business enterprises which are aimed at making a real profit for individuals..I don't have a problem with that being taxed."... sadly, the tax laws are designed to assist all religions avoid all tax responsibilities if they so choose...and they do.

This, of course, helps to undermine the free market, which you possibly support, as religious groups move into running shops and even solicitors offices these days.

This costs Australia billions of foregone taxes. More than Rudd doled out once in the GFC, evaporates every year, year after year, pushing up tax rates for 'the poor folk'.... the wealthy, of course, like the churches, evade taxes and fail to pay their way as suggested in the Biblical offerings you highlighted.

"But just remember something..next time your son or daughter is strung out on drugs or alchohol that it's good to have a place such as the Salvation Army farm where they can go to recover and be supported at the same time. Who funds such places ? *think*......."

It never pays to be smug, about how 'good' your children are, but at this stage of their lives, I doubt our troops will be 'strung out' as you suggest. However, that apart, I think I know what you mean, and having just been listening to some St. Vinnies chap on ABC RN talk about homeless people in Canberra I;d just say that the 'deserving poor' mentality that has people falling over themselves to support 'the good folk' who dole out subsidy to the economic system via charity also, all too frequently, are the ones who evade and avoid taxes, and get into blistering arguments about 'dole-bludgers' and 'high taxation'.

Hmmm.... funny, eh? A nation as rich as this one could support all its citizens and ensure everyone was as 'productive' as they could be, but 'charity' allows us to deny the realities of our economic system, and provides the wealthy with a massive subsidy, to fritter their wealth in self-satisfied, wasteful, consumerism.

Dr. Max Wallace, 'The Purple Economy' have a read.

Dear TBC,

The title of your thread is "Gillard speaks
the truth ..." I merely mentioned that most politicians
speak "polspeak." And with an election on the
horizon, and considering the facts of recent events
and the way in which she's risen to power, "truth,"
may not be as crystal clear as all that. She needs
to present a certain image wouldn't you say - in order
not to alienate more people than she already has?
After all she wants to appear focused, and knowing
what Australians want and need - right? Unlike her
predessor who had "lost his way." (mind you with her
full support at the time.) :-)

Not quite Foxy... the title is 'Gillard speaks the Truth', and do note the capitalised 't' in Truth... a hint of a joke there Foxy, since those who seek Truth within the Howard-Rudd paradigm tend to subscribe to the Truth in the Sky Man, like Rudd's good chums in the ACL.

I have no doubt that Gillard speaks your 'the truth' on as a regular basis as most politicians do, when it suits them.

Her tack record shows that in fact, with her terrible performance in education and IR, denying her supposed 'links' to unions by siding with 'the bosses'.

Gillard's sense of 'allegiance' is as flexible as she needs it to be, to be PM.

I know Tanner, someone who comes across as 'more honest' than many pollies, says he is leaving to save his family, but maybe he saw how awkward it will be to have been one of the architects of Rudd's failure as a PM, along with the entire Caucus, and decided he'd be better served by exiting now, rather than staying on, especially since there is now no chance of him becoming either Treasurer or PM.

I see no one has asked either Burke or Gillard what they mean by 'sustainable' in the rewording of Burke's portfolio. That will be a test of 'honesty' and truth. We may well find that Treasury 'projections' of 36m population will indeed be determined to be 'sustainable', once the election is over. The meat of a new thread there in fact.