Are UNIVERSAL CENTRES the alternatives?

As a “CONSTITUTIONALIST” I deplore the usage of taxpayers monies for religious funding where this is unconstitutional.
.
Hansard 2-3-1898
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.
.
It would however not be unconstitutional if the Commonwealth of Australia financed the building of “UNIVERSAL CENTRES” which could be used by all different religions as well as atheist for all kind of purposes regardless if they are religious related or not. A multi purpose centre.
.
In the USA large venues (like basketball court size stadiums) holding 35,000 people are used by churches and why not then have this kind of stadium build as UNIVERSAL STADIUMS where it used in a sharing manner of half religious meetings and half non-religious meetings?
.
As such, instead of providing the current unconstitutional funding to religions, being it tax deduction and tax exemptions, the abolishment of them would not only be required constitutionally but the alternative would still enable churches who lack proper finances to have a gathering at large venues. Provided the moneys charged is balanced to about 50% religion and about 50% non-religious contributions from those attending then why not provide this kind of alternative?
Why indeed should taxpayers fund religious gatherings for the usage of entertainment and not provide the same kind of venues for non-religious purposes? After all, teenagers and others who do not practice religion still need their fair share of entertainment.
keep in mind that avoiding religious bodies benefiting from out taxation and by this preventing them to send it overseas, we achieve financially a lot in that regard also!

Gerrit.....

the thing most people miss and miss badly, is that 'The Church'.. the ekklesia.. is.. THE PEOPLE not the building.

So....you have a fair point and I won't argue with it.

One problem with building 'chapels' and 'churches' is that they look awfully sad when that denomination experiences 2nd generation fall off and you have a couple of people clinging desperately to tradition.

Or..when, by virtue of their lamentable and liberal theology, they stand for 'nothing', and people tweak to this and fade away.

In any case. 'The Church' SHOULD be independant, self supporting and self propogating.

James Hudson Taylor (Founder of the China Inland Mission) once said:

"God's work, done in God's way, will never lack God's provision"

I can only say 'amen' to that.

With a UNIVERSAL CENTRE the youth could have a place to meet even without having to attend to a religious gathering. It could have buildings with it that when a religious ceremony is conducted others can still pursue non-religious entertainment.
The aim is to stop the rorting of using taxation for tax-deductions and tax-exemptions (mainly going overseas) and showing that at a far lesser cost people can still have the benefits of religious and non-religious entertainment.
Tens of millions of dollars are being send out of this country by religious bodies originating in the USA and we the taxpayers are ending up making up the shortfall. And, they didn’t even have to pay tax as they are usually exempted! Now, as this is unconstitutional then why not stop this without causing harm to those who still like to participate in a religion?
Basically it can be a family outing where the parents may join up to the religious gathering while the kids or some of them may prefer to attend there at a non-religious gathering.
Where as churches and other religious buildings may be under-used, the UNIVERSAL CENTRES could be used for a range of purposes. The USA church that allowed for some 35,000 people to attend was more like a basket ball stadium with large screens, etc. As such, having this kind of stadium modified to become a UNIVERSAL CENTRE we may even see it to benefit young and old. People then do not have to join some religion or cult to meet other people but can do so regardless of religion.
As for the Exclusive Brethern, I view the “States” (as they have the legislative powers to do so) should legislate that any religious organisation must allow its services to be accessible to others otherwise they cannot obtain exclusion of property rates, neither can be granted NOT FOR PROFIT organisation classibfication, etc, as religious bodies ordinary obtain for their churches, temples, etc.

Gerrit
the EB are not as 'closed' as you might think, and it would depend on the particular local culture to a degree.

The EB in my area invited local residents (non Christian and Christian alike) to attend one of their services as osbservers....

Also, the only 'exclusive' thing about them is that they maintain a high standard of morality, and anyone who thinks he can say "I've repented" and still carry on fooling around with all manner of sleaze would quickly be disciplined and possibly exlcuded, UNTIL he had put that thing right in his or her life whereupon he/she would be welcomed back.

I don't know where you get this 'overseas' connection with Tax breaks and churches..care to elaborate ?

David,

Hillside Church is from the USA and I understand they are shipping back loads of moneys from Australia. Now, if they were taxed as like any other company making profit they would have to pay a lot of tax. By them not doing so it means we end up having to pay more tax to make up the shortfall.

As for any religious body I do not accept that it should be closed of behind gates, as is shown so often. If they are a religious organisation then I view they should be accessible to anyone, regardless if the person is religious or not.
For example my wife likes attending to a church at times, and albeit I do not practice any religion I have at times spend up to 4½ hours next to my wife in churches because she wanted to be there. My wife knows that as her husband I will attend and never complain about doing so. I just switch of my hearing aids and hear next to nothing. But, no church ever questioned me or my right to enter their church ( even so I was baptised in regard of a different religion), when I accompany my wife.
With the Exclusive Brethern it appears to me that this is more like a cult then a religion. In the USA they have the Mormons who practice their kind of religion but I understand they welcome anyone in their midst, so also some other religions.
I just view that no religion should shunt people who do not practice religion. When you get high fences and other rot around some compound that it is more like a cult then a religion.