First Dog socks now in stock at the Crikey Emporium!
A cautionary tale…
Xenophon didn’t go far enough: no religion should be tax free
|
I like Nick Xenophon, I like him a lot. He’s like the anti-Steve: an independent senator able to his head above water as he swims through the senatorial swill. His attack on the tax free status church of Scientology last night was laudable, and long overdue, but did not go nearly far enough. Scientologists really are fish in a barrel though: they owe their beginnings to a not-terribly-good science fiction writer, they believe in aliens and they have couch-jumping Tom Cruise as their mascot. You’re not going to provoke a riot by poking them with pointy sticks; but if you are going to question the right of Scientologists to run a tax free organisation, how can you not ask the same question about the Catholics, the Jews, the Pentecostals and the Muslims? Religious groups in Australia have a combined wealth of around $1 billion, they run cereal companies, insurance companies, wineries and pizza chains, and pay none of the income tax or capital gains tax that slows the rest of us down on our climb to wealth and profit. Why not? These are for-profit activities, they are not charitable or even evangelical; they are in the business of being in business, how do they manage to avoid business costs because of a misty historical precedent that has no relevance in a secular society? Religious organisations argue that their profits are redistributed to the community in the form of charitable activities and community services. This same claim is made by purveyors of poker machines and it’s the reddest of herrings in both cases. Non-profit or charitable activities are tax deductions no matter who you are, and if all your profits are distributed this way then you will not pay any tax on them. If you are not a religious organisation, however, you will need to put in a tax return and provide some proof that this is indeed the case. What possible cause does any church have to say that they should be exempt from this requirement? A stronger argument against taxing religious organisation is that it would allow governments to shut down churches for non-payment of taxes, and could be manipulated to allow secular interference with religions unpopular with the government of the day. This is a valid point and no-one wants to see governments mucking about with religion, but taxing business activities is not going to interfere with any religious activities, unless you want to believe in the divine properties of Weet-bix™ and So Good™. It’s fear-mongering and chest-beating to drown out the facts. Taxes are only required where profit is generated: if the expenses of running a business (or church) are more than the income, there is no tax to be paid; if a church wants to confine itself to charitable and evangelical activities it will generate no profit and not have to worry about taxes. If, on the other hand, a religious organisation manages to extract profits from its congregation or cereal packets, it should not be allowed to hide the source or the amount of those profits from the public by covering it with a shroud of we-are-untouchable-because-of-God mysticism. It has no place in a society like Australia, which is, blessedly, secular. |
|
|
131 Comments
Not nearly secular enough. But too right, I’ve been boycotting the Sanatarium brand for some time because of this.
Jane, I disagree violently - “not-terribly-good science fiction writer” is far too kind to Hubbard, he’s an awful, abysmal atrocious[1] SF writer.
But, you’re right about the tax-free status of religious groups, why, if I was setting up a company today, I’d make it a religion in the incorporating articles. Why would you not do this?
[1] that’s without needing to move on from the ‘a’ adjectives.
Yeah, great idea ! NOT !
Please tax the Anglicans so they cannot afford to provide affordable care for my demented octogenarian mother - and many many like her.
OK, some “churches” manage to not make a profit from commercial operations by clever accounting. I agree. Tax their legs off.
But when you adopt some wooden-headed catch all idea, be prepared for the unintended consequences. And we can seend all the incontinent dribblers over to your place.
Great article and I could not agree more. By not paying tax on their profits, religious institutions only add to the tax burden for companies and individuals. A genuine secular society would not allow tax exemptions based on mediaeval superstitions.
@Mike - have you seen how much they charge for care if they decide you can afford it? Believe me, they aren’t running at cost.
Lets go another step further.
There is a certain well known religious organization that has as major tenets of its dogma that women are not permitted to be included in the ranks of their official political hierachy, that homosexuality is a sin, that abortion is a sin, that divorce [except under ‘special’ circumstances] is a sin [whatever], that men are the ‘leaders’ of the family,that the ‘family” [well one narrow interpretation of such] is ‘sacred’ [although second to their god[s]] that contraception is naughty, or worse, ….and so on.
Yet this same organization receives tens [hundreds?] of millions of taxpayer dollars annually to provide social welfare sevices many of which are directly concerned with divorce/abortion/homosexuality/family etc.
All of which is filtered through their ‘unique’ religious ideology.
And they make a profit from this.
Amen.
Meski, yes I am aware they they charge people who can pay.
And I am pleased that they charge a commercial rate because I am personally in touch with people who cannot pay, who have no assets and who enjoy 7 X 24 hour care for the price of 85% of an age pension.
Church nursing homes are obliged by regulation to take a certain number of these poor folks.
Since pension-only residents are a massive loss-making burden, I am more than happy to see my mum’s church-owned and run nursing home charge those who can pay, pay enough to subsidise the poor.
And for those in the middle - who used to own a home of their own, the nursing home takes a sizeable bond, enjoys the interest on that investment - not so hot in a global financial meltdown - and they can withdraw a maximum of about $15k over the first five years a person is care. When that person dies, their estate gets the lot back - less a max of $15.
Fair and reasonable.
@Mike - Ms Shaw’s point is that the Anglican church et should definitey be tax exempt in respect of their charitable/welfare activities, like caring for your mother.
Just like any other charitable activity carried on by any other organisation.
But they should not be exempt from tax purely because they’re religions. Belief in supernatural beings - or not - should have ZERO to do with their tax status.
The “unintended consequences” will be that the wealthy churches cough up - leaving more tax dollars to provide to people and organisations who genuinely provide charitable care, for genuine charitably purposes, and who are, to boot, not exempt from anti-discrimination laws while doing so.
Excellent idea, Jane. This is one of those issues that get me all steamed up, and not just because I’m irreligious. Not only do they not pay tax but they are also free from regulatory controls. For example, they’re not bound by the Banking Act if they operate in the financial services industry.
They function as a separate economy to the mainstream, yet compete with it. At the very least they should be transparent and accountable.
“charge those who can pay, pay enough to subsidise the poor.” I’m not sure about the validity of this. By definition, those who can afford have already been paying tax at the highest marginal rate, and now you expect them to subsidise people that can’t pay? There’s an encouragement right there to spend what you earn when you earn it, and not be able to pay for services later, knowing that someone else will subsidise you. Me, I’ve seen what these nursing homes provide[1], and would euthanise myself before becoming a patient in one.
[1] too recently to be rational about it.
I agree - many church organisations are getting away with it by running businesses competeting unfairly with taxpayer paying enterprises. One group we need to get stuck into is the salvation army and their manouverings around the tax system for their “welfare” work.
When you read how the High Court dealt with the Scientologists back in, what was it, the 1970s (I think our little mate was there), it is clear that just about any old religious definition will get you past the regulators. So, Jane Shaw, go one step further. Sketch out the words of the legislation you would have to define religion because no one else (in Australia) seems to be able to do it.
We should tax religious bodies like we do cigarettes, increase the tax until these out-moded and patently un-christian bodies go broke. They say an unbeliever like me is going to hell so I’d like to see the same happen to them.
One difficulty we seem to be facing is drawing a boundary about what is a charitable operation within a church organisation and what is a completely separate commercial operation - which taken as a completely separate thing should be taxable like the rest of commerce and private earnings.
However, we may suspect that in some cases the commercial operation in a church does in fact put money into the charity and if this can be demonstrated, that money ought to be non-taxable, no ?
Just like the Church of the Latter DAY Paul Newman Pastafarian Sauces.
But it gets a lot more complex than that. Suppose the capital gain earnt by a church selling an asset - which was previously exempt from lots of other normal costs like rates etc - is ploughed into a charity. Would that be tax-exempt ? No ? A bit ? Are you asking for every income stream, and every expenditure in a church to be accountable - like it certainly isn’t for say a gambling and media empire or a packaging manufacturer ? Good luck.
Come on folks, let’s put the cards on the table. This is just a shot at dodgy culty or in anyway slightly suss type religions dressed up as moral indignation. And THAT, I’m all for.
Take your trousers off and show some charity !
@Mike: The fact that an organisation is religious should have no bearing on the issue. If they operate commercially, they should pay tax like the rest of us. If they run charities, they can apply for all the exemptions and benefits that charities attract. If they choose to act like a social club, they can be treated accordingly. It’s simple: Just keep the entities legally separate.
I applaud Nick Xenophon for speaking out about those people, who’ve been treated in a horrific manner. Bring on the Senate Inquiry - it should include some others as well, Exclusive Brethren for one? I wonder how much their rates would be if they had to pay? How about St Mary’s Cathedral in Sydney for example? Interesting thought?
FREDEX - I’m with you. The catholic church is a good example of what happens when churches are allowed to make impossible rules, and build wealth and privilege, but ask the masses to provide financial assistance. Years ago, I’d moved with my then husband, 2 very young kids, and a priest came to the door. (I was raised a catholic, and was an angry young woman re contraception at that time - I chose my health and sanity over dogma.)I finally found the tea pot and made him a cuppa - even though I was busy as? A few days later I received an envelope with little envelopes inside, that obviously should contain my weekly offerings. I went out the back and put them in the incinerator, and never went back - ever? We were as poor as at the time, that was pretty obvious by what material wealth we didn’t have? I was and still am disgusted by the focus on money, while they use BS to suggest, that we ‘should offer up our poverty? for the good of ???)
I’ve read that the value of properties that (all)the churches own in this country is about $8 billion. I also recall my late sister reading, “In God’s Name’ and telling me that the catholic church had investments in a company that made contraceptives? How’s that for having a damned cheek? Didn’t the anglicans just lose millions on the stockmarket via the GFC? I’d be too embarrassed to admit it, but they know no shame!
MILE & MESKI - I believe that care of the aged (and the very young too for that matter) should be paid for via our taxes. If we stopped handing out billions to the fossil fuel industries for example, we could probably pay for it. We could probably pay aged care nurses a decent salary as well. Some of the ‘run for profit’ aged care facilities are disgraceful, and the paltry wages paid to nurses and carers etc are pathetic. Years ago, I learned about the aged care in Holland via a friend, whose mother was in a hostel complex - water beds for all residents(no pressure sores for them) and in general superior care.
There are many anomolies in our country. Educational needs of kids from 5 - 18 are paid for by the State(this is a right)but pre-school care and education can be run by anyone almost, for profit. Health care by federal government doesn’t include dental health(at this stage). Sick people can be cared for in public hospitals, but there’s nowhere designated for people with disabilities or car accident victims or victims of crime who are disabled. Crazy isn’t it? Yet, we allow these wealthy church ‘companies’ to function without charging taxes, and hand out billions of taxpayers money to their wealthy schools? No wonder we get as mad as hell!
Charities are entitled to be tax free. The ATO determines whether these organisations are for “charitable purposes” and hence can be tax free. From the ATO website
“Charitable purposes are defined as
the relief of poverty or sickness or the needs of the aged
the advancement of education
the advancement of religion
child care services on a non-profit basis, and
other purposes beneficial to the community”
Surely most religious organisations fulfill these purposes.
There are a lot of other organisations I disagree with, but think are still deserving of tax free status. If lobbying organisations like Greenpeace can get tax free status in Australia, surely the churches can too.
It’s nice to note the lighthearted nature of many of the comments in this thread.
Of course, commercial activities should be taxed. Perhaps religion is not of itself an adequate reason for tax deductability, etc, etc.
However, spare a thought for the poor atheists and humanists and agnostics amongst us. Their organisations are non-religious and thus don’t share this advantage as they do battle for souls (or otherwise).
The ATO has enough trouble trying to get companies and individuals to pay their tax (Frank Lowy anyone?).
Scott, re Greenpeace. I am not so sure that thier tax deductability or tax free status is as wide as religious institutions.
Presumably, they have Deductable Gift Recipient status in respect of some funds raised for specific purposes. But do they have income tax exemption for their operation as a whole? I very much doubt it.
Anybody from Greenpeace reading this blog?
I don’t think the author understands that commercial activities are not taxed if the company is set up so that the profits go to charitable purposes. So if the Secular Society sells “Secular Bix” breakfast cereal and gives the profits to any purpose meeting the ATO list given by Scott at his comment at 3:36pm then it pays no tax on the profits from that business, even though it is a plain ordinary cereal manufacturing business.
I think that is the effect of the High Court’s ruling in the “Word Investments” case last year, albeit crudely put.
Other comment that I would make is that the assumption that many religious bodies are wealthy and/or profitable is not accurate. Sure the Anglican and Catholic churches have alot of assets for historical reasons but I don’t think they turn a profit. You might look at Hillsong church for example, and think that because they are large they are therefore wealthy, but whilst they have a high and growing turnover they don’t neccesarily turn a profit. I’ve been involved in a number of (Protestant) churches over the years and they generally run a balanced budget, be it large or small.
The irony of that is that if the Scientologists lost any special tax status that they hold it would likely make little difference to what tax they would pay.
In that case, John, they shouldn’t mind losing their tax-exempt status.
“I agree - many church organisations are getting away with it by running businesses competeting unfairly with taxpayer paying enterprises. One group we need to get stuck into is the salvation army and their manouverings around the tax system for their “welfare” work.”
Bill, I don’t think the Salvos are really the religious group you want to pick to have a go at. They do an incredible amount of difficult work that government won’t take responsibility for because upper middle class people always want a tax cut.
Given the outsourcing of all sorts of service by government would you rather helping the homeless is done by a group like the Salvos or by Eddy Groves.
Judging by this article I’d say that the net wealth of religious groups far exceeds $1bn.
And yes, if the churches are investing money in the stockmarket, they should have to pay tax.
According to the financial report from 2007 from their website (couldn’t find 2008’s), Greenpeace Australia is confirmed as a tax free entity and makes no provision for income tax (page 3)
Here’s my big idea - get rid of special tax breaks for all charities.
I believe that people give to charities because they support what they do and it feels good to give, to make a contribution. The tax break is generally not a motivation. And charities do the work because they believe in it and value it highly. I don’t think that removing tax deductibility for gifts to charities would make much of a difference to their income at all.
If the government thinks that a charity deserves something from the public purse then give it a subsidy, but keep the tax rules the same for companies, charities, trusts, everyone.
EnergyPedant, your Eddie Groves line does it for me. Gold-plated. I think you get a gold star with chevron.
@Scott, it is perfectly clear that where a church (or anyone else) provides services dedicated to “the relief of poverty or sickness or the needs of the aged, the advancement of education, child care services on a non-profit basis” etc then that creates a benefit to the community, and quite properly ought to have tax benefits.
The question here is whether “the advancement of religion” ITSELF should be something we ought to support, as a community?
I have no objection to subsidising (through my taxes) a church, or anyone else, providing genuine welfare services.
What I DO object to is subsidising a church to “advance its religion” (particularly when that religion explicitly DISCRIMINATES against me, ADVOCATES for the diminution of my human rights, INCITES VIOLENCE against me, and PERPETRATES VIOLENCE against others.)
But Kirk my point is that NO ONE in Australia has to pay tax if they are using the profits from their investments (be they in the stock market or elsewhere) for charitable purposes.
The case I referred to earlier - http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2008/55.html
Kate’s comment is really what the author of the article is trying to say.
As a Christian I must say that I would not be upset at all if such a change were made. Special government treatment does the church no favours in the long run - it just makes it complacent and lazy. Historically churches have grown fastest when there has been persecution (the opposite end of the spectrum to tax perks), just as underground churches in China are booming right now.
Hi all, good to see this is raising some debate – and such a civilised one too!
There are too many comments for me to respond to all of them specifically, but I should note a couple of points:
I am not and would never advocate that tax exemptions should be removed for organisations that care for the elderly, the homeless or perform any other charitable activity.
I am suggesting that religious institutions should be answerable to the tax office in the same way that every other organisation is. They should have to report their earning and the source of those earnings, they should have to pay tax on profit they realise. If there are no profits because all the excess income has been returned to charitable activities, then no tax is due. If profit is retained or used to further grow the enterprise then it should be taxed the way any other organisation is.
I am suggesting the opposite of singling out religious institutions for special treatment. There is no basis for them to have any special treatment. Be you Greenpeace, BHP, Church/Mosque/Synagogue or a brothel, you should have the same regulatory and taxation requirements.
“Religious groups in Australia have a combined wealth of around $1 billion”
This is missing 2 or 3 extra zeros, particularly if you look at real estate value. Some church owned hospitals would be worth close to a billion dollars by themselves.
My comment though, relates to the income tax breaks that go to employees of churches and other charitable groups. Most of the university department I used to work in moved to a “charitable” research foundation, got the same pre-tax salary, and were then able to salary package pretty much all their expenses (mortgage, food, school fees, holidays, cars etc), giving them an effective 25% salary increase.
Same goes for (some?) employees at private hospitals compared to those in the public system. Pretty hard to encourage people to stay in the underfunded public system with those sorts of inducements to move.
All of these tax issues should be looked at long and hard by the Henry review. I suspect people do not generally mind paying a reasonable rate of tax, provided the tax burden is equitably shared across the community. Hiding behind the cloaks of religion to avoid paying a reasonable amount of tax on profits and earnings should be outlawed.
@EnergyPedant (and Mike cheering in the stands) - strawman. The choice is not between the fine upstanding Salvos and the evil Eddies Groves.
The choice is between:
(a) organisations which provide charitable services and at the same time promulgate the existence of a supernatural being, advocate for everyone to be required to abide by the supernatural being’s rules, and discriminate against gays, women, unmarried persons, non-believers, and anyone else they choose; and which receive taxpayer funding to subsidise those discriminatory views & practices; and
(b) organisations which provide charitable services.
@Mike - now that several of us have pointed out the flaw in your reasoning, can you justify why religious organisations should receive tax subsidies FOR THEIR RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES?
@John “Historically churches have grown fastest when there has been persecution (the opposite end of the spectrum to tax perks), just as underground churches in China are booming right now.”
Historically churches have mainly been the ones doing the persecuting, and they have grown fastest where ignorance, lack of education, poverty & inequity is most widespread.
The main enemies of religion are free speech, transparency, education and a broad high standard of living. Countries with these qualities (Australia, NZ, the Scandinavian countries) etc, have low levels of religiosity.
Which just adds to the arguments for religious organisations to be subject to tax laws and scrutiny like any other business.
Kate - no, you are right - no tax breaks for religious activities - except for the Holy Catholic Church of Mike - who is a significant donor to the church nursing home of Mike’s mum.
Lindsay B - this is a pertinent and important point. Why is it that a worker in a church hospital can get a tax break on their food bills, for example and a person doing identical work in the public system cannot ? Lots of downside here. Exploitation all around.
Religious authorities are very powerful business corporations who have held the hearts and minds of too many hostage for too long, and we continue to aid the spread of their dogmatic cancer by not taxing them. The time for their tax-exemption to end came long ago. What are we waiting for?
I was wondering how long it would take for someone to connect the dots and extend the scientology discussion to Hillsong. But this is even better.
Let tax breaks apply specifically to those activities that deserve to attract them. Merely being a “religious” organisation doesn’t quite cut it (to put it mildly).
Yes, it was great to see Nick off-load on scientology. Now to be consistent he should drop the bomb on all religions. They’re all criminal syndicates receiving or extorting monies from the public and governments under false pretences. Let’s not forget that the “Christian” Hitler made sure the church had special protected status in German during his reign of terror as well. If you need educating, go here. http://nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm
With that said it’s not all grim, a lot of the work the religious do is great humanitarian stuff and should be acknowledged and tax exempt. Nevertheless, it doesn’t need to be done on the back of superstition and myth. Let’s face it, if the government had to run all our aged and educational facilities, we’d all be paying more tax. Granted, the people working in these places would be paid more and have better conditions but that’s another debate.
How about the mad monk chiming in on radio this morning, calling scientologist’s nut cases, or something like that. Yer Tony, the Roman Catholic Church is based on tenets just as absurd, or even more ridiculous. We all know for sure you’re a nutjob that’s for certain. I look forward to the day when it’s commonplace when acknowledged rational atheists are elected to parliament. We’ll know then that the tide of shored up ignorance is slowly turning towards the sure enlightenment of rationality. Keep on evolving on.
@John - I agree, if they use the profits for charitable purposes they shouldn’t have to pay tax (under the law, at least).
However, if they are using the profits for charitable purposes - as opposed to reinvesting the profits to continue to grow their equity - then how have they possibly created so much wealth? Where do the hundreds of millions of dollars of assets come from, if not from capital growth and reinvesting profits?
If they used the profits for charitable purposes - and did not reinvest - then they would surely have far, far less equity today.
This must be a hot topic. Religion like sport is a form of personal indulgence, and should not be subsidised by the taxpayer. Genuine charitable activity should be tax-deductible if the external benefits of the tax concession exceed the concession applied.
Purveyors of superstitious nonsense should pay taxes like anybody else, and as a consequence they may become a lot more efficient in terms of resource usage. The suburban landscape included withsubstantially empty buildings cross subsidised by State Federal and local tax concessions.
There would be an area for the Henry taxation reviewif we had any courageous politicians.
The mere fact that the Anglicans had $160M spare to LOSE in CDO scams show they don’t need tax free status. Nor the Catholics who tried to get rid of father Bob for the heinous crime of “looking aftert the poor” which i seem to recall some other (alleged) entity advocated.
Religion is child abuse, why it is allowed to be inflicted before the age of consent is beyond me.
Am heartened by the general consensus shown here - but how do we effect change?
I wonder what Jane Shaw thinks about :
Homosexual Marriage
Abortion
Nuclear Power
The Refugee Issue
National Sovereignty
A Republic
It would be interesting to get her views but alas I would probably not be surprised by her answers. I am no longer surprised by the poor conceptual models many people construct for themselves.
In the wonderful adventure that is life secularism leads to a spiritual dead-end. If Australia goes down the anti-monotheistic path the people will suffer more and more over time. Denying the existence of a higher authority is a very dangerous life choice for an individual. For a nation it leads to terminal decline. Only the most calcified of souls become totally divorced from the Creator. How layered in traumatic conditioning is the author ?
Well, thirdborn314, it looks like time for prayer. Since we haven’t got one. Sorry, just kidding !
A passionate post, Adamneira, but you seem a bit confused about Jane’s article. She is advocating tax reform, not the complete abolition of religious belief and its institutions. Perhaps we could get your views on the topic at hand?
I have problem to understand the word ‘church’ and ‘charity’. Our new-born Christian neighbour claims that he is a church himself but he needs 500 or so followers to be registered (and probably tax-exempted).
I was working as a volunteer for a charity organisation where all volunteers worked like horses and the administration was on very good salaries doing nothing..
I turned once to a charity organisation for help for somebody, only to learn that they do not help the individuals, their headquarters were in Melbourne and in our area they only collected money. (fund rising branch of this well-known organisation.)
In my opinion, there are many people in the community only too happy to help the others voluntarily. But I think there is something wrong with the administration of the money donated. I know from a fact that lots of money is being syphoned overseas.
I volunteered to sponsor an orphan, a high school student from the Philippines. To my utter surprise I was not allowed to know anything about the girl, I could not send her an individual parcel and I could not visit her. And she would probably never get a visitor’s visa to Australia, anyway. The mercy sisters told me that the individual children in the orphanage cannot be treated differently and all my money and gifts are shared by all the students. Once an orphan, always an orphan. I stopped paying.
YMCA is a church organisation but I would never allow my children to go camping with this organisation.
Like many others, I got a bit cynical about the whole thing.
Thirdborn314: great question, and, like most good questions, there is not really a simple answer.
The Henry Report is looking at this issue and may recommend that tax laws are changed so that religious groups are subject to the same tax requirements as everyone else, but this would have some difficulty getting through parliament. A labor government MIGHT pass something like this through the lower house, but Steve Fielding, who comments on everything and understands nothing, would latch onto it as his last chance for re-election and create a huge amount of noise about refusing to let it through the senate.
Trying to enact such legislation would have the interesting effect of uniting all the religions in a common cause, and polarise public opinion that is usually fairly apathetic about religious issues but with the current make up of the senate, it wouldn’t achieve anything else.
So, what can we do? Simple answer: get rid of Steve Fielding and replace him with someone capable of understanding the requirements of a balance of power senator.
@ Scott
No-one disagrees that that is the case. The question is, should it be?
Again, no-one disagrees that some activities should be tax-free, but what about activities that do not fulfil those purposes, should they be tax free if some other activities by the same organisation are worthy?
Getting offtopic, but Greenpeace is, as I understand it, somewhat under threat - there is or was a move afoot to deregister any charitable organisation that seeks to lobby the government.
I hope the decision to deregister Scientology as a religion is an out come of all of this, but at the centre there is a deeper question - what constitutes a religion in the first place, and why are they automatically assumed to be charitable, generous, altruistic, benign, or a benefit to humanity?
Non religious organisations have to fight tooth and nail to gain tax free status, and then find themselves constantly justifying themselves to the authorities. Religious organisations on the other hand are given a free pass, tax exempt status, and are allowed to go on their merry way.
I would not mind so much, but in almost every case they hinder the progress of science and impose outdated, bronze age mythologies to modern technology and moral and ethical issues. As a society we gain nothing by believing souls enter the zygote at the moment of conception, or Jesus walked on water, or Thor throws lightning bolt from above the clouds, of the FSM spends his days tricking us all by manipulating matter invisibly with his noodly appendages.
Here’s a radical idea - all organisations must be able to demonstrate how they advance the morality, technology, and knowledge of the human species before they are dismissed from the tax payers table. Either that, or no one gets a free ride. I would be happy either way.
Too right these churches should be taxed, however one way or another they seem to find ways of moving money to Lichtenstein or other tax havens - so regardless of taxation status, they never cough up.
I would love to see the Catholic Church pay tax! But it will never happen - just look at how snakey they are when it comes to paying out victims of abuse in Ireland!
As for Andrew Skegg’s comment - the same thing happened to my dad when he was donating to a charity in a smaller town. He said, there are these local guys with no house who live in the street - can the money I am donating go to them? And the charity refused because their money goes primarily to the homeless in Sydney. I would say it is probably best to donate to smaller local charities, however the trick is figuring out which ones arent scam merchants.
As a friend[1] of mine wittily said:
It’s like saying you don’t have to pay tax because your invisible friend says so.
[1] A non-believer, unlike me.
i am a religion/god sceptic and am suprised at how much power the religious movement has in Australia. Imagine if the religion/god sceptics got as much flak as the global warming sceptics get haha!!!
One day, I’d like to hear a Prime Minister get elected and then say “I am actually agnostic” but that will never happen. I mean, does Howard, Rudd and Turnbull really turn up to sunday mass by choice?!?!?
I watched a great doco on the BBC the other night on how much say the Israelis still have in the UK and the USA (Aust too?). The BBC did an honest piece of journalism on the quality of life between Palestine an Israel but only to be accused as anti-semitic.
Religion is outdated these days anyway!!
Adamneira - “I am no longer surprised by the poor conceptual models many people construct for themselves.” Actually I’m always surprised at people whose conceptual model has to include a personal relationship with an imaginary being. Indicates sad personal inadequacy (and/or brainwashing) to believe it’s essential.
“In the wonderful adventure that is life secularism leads to a spiritual dead-end. If Australia goes down the anti-monotheistic path the people will suffer more and more over time. Denying the existence of a higher authority is a very dangerous life choice for an individual. For a nation it leads to terminal decline.” Evidence please? The Nordic nations, some of the least religious democracies that have ever existed, seem to be me some of the most civilised nations on earth. Then I look at Africa and Latin America, strongholds of Christianity, and don’t exactly see a model for emulation…
“In the wonderful adventure that is life secularism …”
Firstly, secular does not mean anti-religious, atheist, or agnostic - it means “I have no comment in relation to this”. This equates to no particular religion (or no religion at all) being held above or below any other. In a fair and just society this is a virtue to be upheld.
“… leads to a spiritual dead-end.”
This spirit you talk of - have any evidence whatsoever of its existence? First demonstrate you have a spirit before displaying how it might die.
“If Australia goes down the anti-monotheistic path …”
Again, secular does not mean anti-religious, or anti monotheistic. It’s interesting you are happy offending all those people who believe in many gods - the polytheists.
“…the people will suffer more and more over time.”
Suffer from what?
“Denying the existence of a higher authority is a very dangerous life choice for an individual.”
Why?
“For a nation it leads to terminal decline.”
In what way? Do you have examples? A brief look at history demonstrates that nations and cultures come and go, but I fail to see any which obviously failed due to embracing rational thinking, reason, evidence, logic.
The freedom to practice religion is one of the few protections explicitly mentioned in the Australian constitution. Section 116 says
116. The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.
Now the question is does taxation by the government “prohibit the free exercise of any religion”?
Hard to say. While not a demand side argument (preventing the punter), you could argue it could be a supply side (preventing the church) issue. I’m not a lawyer, but I would think any change to tax-free status would have to go to the High Court to be sorted.
The other way is to get a referendum going to change that section of the constitution so that any ambiguity is removed. With 66% of the population believing in some religion, I don’t think it would get up.
Interesting perspective Scott. My understanding of constitutional law is that the court should consider the intent behind the words as much as the words themselves. Given that the intent of 116 was for the government to stay the hell away from any form of interference in religion, is it possible that you could mount a constitutional argument that, by defining religious institutions for tax purposes, and thereby denying some groups religious status, the government is operating beyond it’s constitutional boundaries?
Scott,
I am not a constitutional lawyer either, but I fail to see how taxing an organisation prevents them from operating. There are millions of businesses in this country today which operate perfectly well with the burden of taxes.
Secondly, could you please elaborate on how someone’s whacky ideas of souls, afterlives, eternal judgement, reincarnation, transubstantiation, or telepathically talking to a 2,000 year of Jewish zombie (to name but a few) is affected by the requirement to maintain proper financial record and contribute their way in society. I fail to see the connection, unless their invisible friend says they don’t have to pay and that belief constitutes a vital tenant of their religion.
People are free to practice their religion if they wish and I would not support removing section 116 from the constitution. It’s there to protect peoples belief from being trodden on by the government of the day, which would be within its right to establish a state sanctioned religion if it were not for that clause.
@the duke Bob Hawke and Paul Keating mate, atheists and proud of it
@Jane :Good points. It’s hard to guess what the intent of the founders was. The section was apparently modelled on the US constitution so I presume it’s the whole “Separation of church and state”. But really, that’s up to the courts to determine.
The definition of what a religion is was pretty much worked out legally in
High Court Judgement in 1983 (Church of New Faith Vs Commissioner of Payroll tax).
It said that Scientology was a religion and thus was entitled to use the payroll tax exemption for religious organisations in the Victorian state legislation.
From the judgement
“As has been said, each case must be determined on the basis of the evidence adduced. With all respect to those who have seen the matter differently, we do not consider the present case, when approached on that basis, to be a borderline one. Regardless of whether the members of the applicant are gullible or misled or whether the practices of Scientology are harmful or objectionable, the evidence, in our view, establishes that Scientology must, for relevant purposes, be accepted as “a religion” in Victoria. That does not, of course, mean either that the practices of the applicant or its rules are beyond the control of the law of the State or that the applicant or its members are beyond its taxing powers.”
Note the last sentence. Australian States can still tax religions if they see fit (as there is nothing preventing this in the constitution). Yet even they put in exemption for religions in their tax bills.
Other than that there have been two other High Court cases that deal with Section 116
Krygger Vs Williams (1912) - Basically stated that a man could not get out of conscription based on his religious beliefs.
Adelaide Company of Jehovah’s Witnesses v Commonwealth (1943) - Proved that national defence laws override religious freedom
So hard to say what the Court would decide to a taxation case. No government of any stripe would ever try to do it though. Politically it’s too risky.
@Andrew - Taxing an organisation/company can stop it operating. Happens all the time. How many companies have entered administration/gone bankrupt due to liabilities to the tax office? Loads of them. And religions do maintain proper financial records (they have to prove to the tax office that they adhere to the legislation governing the tax exemption). As for contributing to society, well that’s up to the individual to decide. For mine, I think they do.
… and Helen Clark in NZ. The recent trend towards god-botherers in high antipodean office is disturbing (although perhaps only a glitch).
Scott,
I was not clear enough. It’s not whether a business is viable with taxation or not, rather it has zero bearing on the beliefs of those who adhere to the faith. I am free to believe in UFOs, crystal healing, taro cards, or an everlasting life with my pal Jesus, but none of those things require money to maintain my belief in them. Moreover, there is no charitable act, kind deed, or helpful thing which demands I believe in some supernatural agent, or mystical realm. That is not to say that religious organisations do not perform helpful functions, but that we do not need the additional baggage of unproved, irrational, and mostly insane dogma which often goes with their charitable work.
Andrew
I notice no-one has responded to my challenge to Mike to justify why religious organisations should receive tax subsidies for religious activities, nor Andrew Skegg’s challenge for religions to demonstrate how they advance the morality, technology, and knowledge of the human species.
Any takers?
IMHO, even if (which I doubt) some small good can be said to come from the religious activities of religious organisations, any such benefit is vastly outweighed by the significant harm caused to the community.
Belief in a supernatural being and insistence on unithinking adherence to its arbitrary rules:
- diminishes learning capacity & critical thinking skills
- creates social division and fosters prejudice
- diverts resources from genuinely beneficial charitable work
- causes distress, fear & unhappiness among those deemed to be “unworthy” of the supernatural being or in breach of its rules
- distorts social policy
KAte, far from *advancing* morality, technology and knowledge, most/many religions actively *retard* these areas.
@Kate Well how about the Catholic school system for one example. Accounts for 21% of all Secondary school enrollments Australia wide (according to DFAT). Surely that can be a response to Andrew’s challenge.
As for religion causing harm to the community, that is your opinion. In my opinion religion is generally a benign force for good in the world. Yes, it can get a little crazy around the fundamentalist edges, but then so can a lot of secular entities as well (see Environmentalism). However, both are valuable and should be allowed to thrive. In my opinion any organisation that performs valuable social work should be given incentives to continue to do so by the Government (as it is basically doing the work of the government)
I may not agree with a lot of what Greenpeace does, yet a lot of people do. Therefore it should be allowed it’s tax exemption. And so should the churches.
This still avoids the question. You say it does valuable social work. Perhaps so. But its core raison d’être is to be a religion, and push material that others regard as fantasy. There’s no reason for this to be tax-free. Or JK Rowling should be able to claim the same status for Harry Potter books.
@Meski - indeed, my point entirely.
@Scott - it is not to the point that the Catholic church provides education. Providing education is a separate head of charity. The question is, why should taxpayers subsidise the “advancement of religion” by the catholic church (or anyone else)?
Teaching children “1+1=2” is no less beneficial (and arguably far more beneficial) than teaching them “1+1=2 because god says it is” or “1+1=2 and if you get it wrong say 5 hail marys” or “1+1=2 and if you don’t believe that you’re going to hell”
Is it just my imagination, or has this blog turned as tedious as a tax return ?
Let it go, pedants…….
@Scott: I think you’re confusing a personal spiritual belief with religious institutions. I have no doubt the former has a benign influence on the individual, but to say that religious institutions are necessarily generally beneficial to the world flies in the face of what we know. To take but one example, the Roman Catholic Churches edicts on contraception, abortion, stem cell research, etc all have a huge and harmful effect on health, population growth, poverty, and so on.
As for the benefits of faith-based schools, as far as I can tell all they do is foster exclusivity. I would far sooner the children attended public schools.
@Mike Jones: Yes, it’s your imagination.
As the great Christopher Hitchen’s once said:
” Religion gets it’s morality from us, we don’t get our morality from religion”
This is a fact, if you don’t believe it read your bible and see for yourself. It’s not a collection of books any society’s morals should be based upon.
Scott,
“Well how about the Catholic school system for one example. Accounts for 21% of all Secondary school enrollments Australia wide (according to DFAT). Surely that can be a response to Andrew’s challenge.”
Well these are private institutions so they are free to teach their students whatever superstitions they wish, however I still fail to see why my tax dollars should be used to fund their delusions. Again, there is nothing about English, Mathemarics, Physics, Chemistry, or any other educational discipline which mandates I believe a cracker literally (but not actually) turns into the flesh of a long dead man, or Mary flew off into Heaven at the moment she died.
“As for religion causing harm to the community, that is your opinion. In my opinion religion is generally a benign force for good in the world.”
It may be an opinion, but it is supported by the facts we can easily obtain. A short glance at the history of religious organisations clearly demonstrates they are not always a good influence on humanity. Inquisitions, witch burning (this is happening in Africa *today*), harvesting of albinos for their organs, holy wars, jihad, terrorist attacks, etc. Do not blinded by the experiences within you own lifetime.
People’s beliefs affect their decisions and when they will not accept blood transfusion due to some loosely interpreted Leviticus passage it puts lives in danger. If they believe the soul enters the zygote at the moment of conception, thus the horrible act of abortion under any circumstances is a mortal sin, it leads to unnecessary death and suffering. When your innate sexuality is against God’s wishes (even though he designed you that way) you are barred from the church and are not allowed into Heaven. When condoms are worse than starvation or AIDS, we have a problem. Irrational thinking leads to real world problems both on the individual level and that of organisations. When you truly believe the Western world is corrupting your pure culture and you will be granted 72 virgins by flying a plane into a building, many people die and the world’s psyche is scared forever.
“In my opinion any organisation that performs valuable social work should be given incentives to continue to do so by the Government (as it is basically doing the work of the government)”
Here we mostly agree. If Scientology, Catholics, Muslims, or any other religious institution can demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt why their faith is simply a force for good in the world, then let them have tax free status. My guess is none will be able to show any such thing for the reasons I give above and more.
@AR - totally agree re religion being subject to age of consent laws
@Phil - basing your society solely on the contents of particularly the Abrahamic cults books is not something an enlightened, intelligent species should do. I wonder how many biblethumpers have actually read the thing!
@Meski - You are right that some people believe that religion is fantasy. And yes, JK Rowling could create a religion that could be tax free (like L Ron Hubbard did). But it’s not just the belief that determines whether something is a religion. It’s the institutions (rites, rituals etc) Potterism doesn’t have those yet so can’t be a religion. No tax free status for JK. (though I don’t know the British Constitution.)
@Perry - Good point. There is no doubt that private schools and catholic schools promote exclusivity. I also think it promotes choice and takes some load off the public school system. However I was just responding to Kate’s query regarding an example of “religions to demonstrate how they advance the morality, technology, and knowledge of the human species”. The Catholic school system would certainly be an example of that.
@Andrew (these posts are getting longer
. As the catholic schools system takes some of the load away from the public system, I do believe they should have access to some Government tax payer dollars.
You are right about the history of the churches. In days past they haven’t been the best world citizens. But the churches are also products of the times. In the middles ages, those seeking power either had to be born into it (the nobility) or join the church (the clergy). And both sides used these shields to perform horrendous acts. Yet they also provided order in a world of chaos.
As for the witch burning etc deeds performed in the name of religion don’t necessarily have the official stamp of religion. In today’s world, most muslims would have been horrified by the September 11 attacks, and rightly so. Religion gets used as shield to camoflage the usual prejedices present in the community already (nationalism, misogyny, xenophobia, homophobia etc). Are these things terrible? Of course. Do I believe the church should do more to stop this behavior? Absolutely. Do I think they are the cause of this? No I do not.
As for having to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they are a force for good. I don’t think any entity (or person for that matter) could do that. No one is perfect. Maybe you should go with “on the balance of probabilities”, the standard required for civil cases.
I’m having trouble following Jane’s argument. By noting that charitable activities are still tax-exempt, she seems to be arguing that there should actually be no such thing as a not-for-profit organisation, just tax-exempt actions.
It’s an intriguing thought, but it sounds like a full employment scheme for lawyers and accountants. It seems to make much more sense to me to make some guidelines, and if you fit in those guidelines, your organisation is non-profit and therefore exempt from certain taxes.
The only question left is: what should those guidelines be?
I agree that no religious organisation should be classed as a non-profit just because it’s religions. But similarly, no religious organisation should be prevented from being classed as a non-profit just because it’s religious. To do otherwise would be a violation of separation of church and state.
So we need to judge religious organisations by the same rules as we judge all other non-profit organisations like charitable foundations, community choirs and local sporting clubs.
Taking in more money than you expend is obviously not automatically “profit”. There is, after all, such a thing as “savings”. If your local sporting club is allowed to save up money to build a new building and still retain not-for-profit status, then your local church should be able to, as well.
Engaging in activities that we would normally think of as “retail” isn’t automatically “profit” either. Oxfam has retail stores. The Lions club has op shops. I’m not sure how they manage this legally, but they certainly don’t lose their not-for-profit status because of it.
I’m no lawyer, but I would imagine that retail stores, cereal companies, wineries, managed funds and insurance companies probably aren’t, for the most part, tax-exempt. I would imagine that these would be separate legal entities. I see a lot of accusations in this story and the thread, but no actual evidence one way or the other. Does anyone actually have any, or are we all blowing smoke?
The difference between the Church of Scientology (note: Scientology is a religion, the Church of Scientology is an organisation; please keep this distinction clear) and the majority of religious institutions is that the CoS is an organisation which provides services in return for money.
You can go to most church every week and never have to pay them a cent. You can go along to any church, mosque, synagogue, temple or other place of worship, and find out everything that they believe for no more than the cost of materials, and sometimes not even that.
The CoS, on the other hand, explicitly ties revealing what they believe with the handing over of money, and the amount of money we’re talking about goes far beyond the cost of printing.
I don’t know where the line should be drawn, but the CoS is well and truly on one side of it, where your local religious organisation is well and truly on the other side.
@ david richards I don’t think anything will erase my memory of the growing look of horror on my wife’s face as she read a children’s catechism Mum had sent me. “they teach this stuff?” she said in disbelief, “to children!?”
A vile book full of vile characters performing vile acts upon one another
C’mon, folks, this topic has expanded to cover everything.
I have decided to blow it further apart.
How about State and Local Gov’t taxes and charges?
Religious buildings are exempt from local government rates, religious bodies have specific exclusions from capital gains taxes, State land taxes and State payroll taxes.
Let’s not get too stuck on corporate income taxes.
Further, as I mentioned above, for many purposes but not all, donations to religious bodies are tax exempt and the repeipt issued by the tax exempt body can be used at the end of June to reduce the taxable income of the donor.
Any proper investigation of the special advantages of religious institutions would uncover a raft of such lurks and perks, from which normal organisations which are dedicated to the benefit of humankind as a whole (humanism, atheism, etc may be partially exempt or not at all.
This story is a huge one and it may well be time for such a public review, with a view to making rational decisions on this subject a basic plank of some political party or other.
@John Bennets:
I think that your post just shows, once again, that we need more evidence. We need to find out exactly what perks religious organisations get that other not-for-profits don’t get. Then, and only then, can we have a rational debate.
I maintain that the most desirable goal should be to treat all not-for-profit organisations equally. That will, I have no doubt, involve scaling back some of the benefits that some currently get and expanding other benefits to cover more groups.
Hi Scott,
One last post for me and I will let the matter rest for now.
“As for the witch burning etc deeds performed in the name of religion don’t necessarily have the official stamp of religion.”
On the contrary. Exodus 22:18 (among others) says “thou shall not suffer a witch to live”. This justification enough for religious people of the past (and some in the modern world) to conclude that 1) witches do exist, and 2) they should be put to death. No amount of theological gymnastics can get away from the clear literal interpretations of these words. The fact modern day Christianity does not perform these tasks anymore is a testament to their ability to dismiss parts of their holy book which become untenable due to the progressive march of societies morality. If the Christian church was still dictating morality from their divinely inspired book we would be still living in the blood bath of the dark ages.
“In today’s world, most muslims would have been horrified by the September 11 attacks, and rightly so.”
Again - the moderate believers of these desert dwelling faiths may not follow the instructions of their sacred books, but all that shows is their willingness to abandon them whenever they becomes unpalatable.
“Religion gets used as shield to camoflage the usual prejedices present in the community already (nationalism, misogyny, xenophobia, homophobia etc). Are these things terrible? Of course. Do I believe the church should do more to stop this behavior? Absolutely.”
I agree they should, but they are still being held back by the 2,000 year old moralities encoded in their godly books.
“Do I think they are the cause of this? No I do not.”
Perhaps you should read the Bible and the Koran and ask yourself what the world would be like if we all tried to adhere to the instructions these texts contain.
“As for having to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they are a force for good. I don’t think any entity (or person for that matter) could do that. No one is perfect. Maybe you should go with “on the balance of probabilities”, the standard required for civil cases.”
Sure entities can show they are “a force for good”. Am I demanding perfection? No. I am asking them to show how they arrive at their decisions to act, and demonstrate how those methods will result in reducing pain and/or increasing pleasure in this world. When an organisation has a book which clearly says homosexuals and adulterers should be stoned to death, eating shell fish and wearing mixed fabrics is an abomination, it’s OK to own and beat slaves (as long as they don’t die within two days), or you can push all your sins onto a perfect human sacrifice to receive eternal rewards (and don’t forget many of these passages sit right alongside good ones the church likes to promote) then I fail to see how they can claim their decisions will be beneficial on the whole.
Religion adds nothing to the equation. It’s based on superstition, dogma, and bad logic. Let’s focus on the world we know exists and operate with real world data.
NICK XENOPHON DEFIES UNITED NATIONS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS DISGRACING AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENT?
Nick Xenophon faces the prospect of a UN Human Rights Commissioner investigation?
Could it be that Australian Senator Nick Xenophon is being manipulated as a puppet of clandestine interests backed by failed Scientologists?
About the Author:
Peter Lionel Griffiths is the President of Artists For Human Rights Asia-Pacific humanitarian organization closely associated with and endorsed by the United Nations Human Rights organizations in New York.
Read full report http://www.climatecleanup.org/nick-xenophon
The Climate Cleanup website is titled “Planetary Civilization Ressurection”. You’d think that Scientologists could at least spell.
@ArtistsForHumanRights That does not appear to be a very reputable website. The ‘author’ who you reference gained his Doctorate of Divinity from the Celebrity Center International in Hollywood, a.k.a. the Church of Scientology.
If he is indeed involved in the Church of Scientology in Australia then he may be concerned about any possible ramifications from police investigation.
I think we’ve seen enough times in the past that Australia politicians couldn’t care less about what the UN thinks. And frankly, neither does the Australian public!
@AFHR - here we go, the onslaught and smear campaign begins.
Or, could it be that your conspiracy theories are a load of bollocks?
Gosh, I wonder which it could be.
Before all religious sects are made accountable for taxes or even the lies they spread, they need to be made accountable for the enourmous amount of sexual child abuse they cause. [Edit]
Why the hell is “the advancement of religion” a charitable purpose? Can I start an organisation aimed at “the reduction of religion” and get tax-free status?
Absolutely. All religions sould be taxed at the same rate as paid by Macquarie Bank and be given the same tough government survelliance as the honourable banking industry in general -oops no - only the same survelliance as the piillar of four, that oughta make every non religious person feeling righteous. And all execs in religious can take a lead from these high paying (Oh really) tax officianados and be paid just the same as them as well. Yeh that would be justice and what a sense of fair play that would bring. Ah no it would not. Before you show signs of intelligent bitterness - think it thru a little - that is if do you really want treatment and response to be the same for all major components of our civilization. Before we ransak the Churches - how about you all spend some enegy on having the leading industrialists and free enterprise gurus reducing their over- the- top examples of greed and over paying for themselves and under paying a fair share of company tax as and when it becomes due. Or are they too clever and too hard a target to hit?
Whether or not big corporations pay sufficient tax is not germane to this discussion.
What is Xenophon’s Game Plan?
From a legal frame of reference The Australian Newspaper published an Article from the Cape York Institute for Policy and Leadership on Saturday November 21 stating the implausibility of a legal remedy against The Church of Scientology as the High Court of Australia has ruled it is a legitimate religion [ 1983 judgment of the High Court in Church of the New Faith v Commissioner of Payroll Tax (Victoria) ].
The Australian Article also states that Section 116 of the Australian Constitution denies the Australian Parliament the right to legislate in respect of religion – Section 116 – “The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.” (1) http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/political-pursuit-of-religion/story-e6frg6zo-1225800617136
If the parliament has no legal powers in respect to deny Scientology as a religion, then what is Nick Xenophon really up to in his witch hunt?
To deny The Church of Scientology its tax-exempt status all other religions would have to re-classified as not being religions as well, this would include Anglicans, Lutherans, Catholics, Buddhists, Hindu, Moslem etc. And this is impossibility at any rate as the parliament has no power to legislate to change the status of religions.
So what is Nick Xenophon up to if there is no legal method to deny the religious tax-exemption from the inquiry he seeks against The Church of Scientology?
If Xenophon’s attack seeks to ban The Church of Scientology then all religions likewise would have to be banned. This is obviously an impossibility.
In his speech Nick Xenophon called The Church of Scientology a “so called religion” which is not true according to the High Court of Australia.
Nick Xenophon then stated his aim to be to deprive The Church of Scientology of its tax-exempt status, something Section 116 of the Australian Constitution prohibits.
What other legitimate motives could Nick Xenophon have in attacking Scientology?
For a lawyer by profession one would imagine Nick Xenophon would be able to deal in facts, not untrue assertions and character assassination of the world’s fastest growing religion The Church of Scientology.
So is it a publicity stunt by a man who is seeking to prove himself the dominator of the Australian Senate as he often holds the balance of power as an unaligned Independent Senator?
Perhaps it is, but a brutal attack on a religion firing bullets with such obvious hatred and falsehoods and no legal footing must backfire on Nick Xenophon in the end.
Maybe it is Nick Xenophon who is in self destruct mode?
Tax exemption is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution.
If other countries have classified Scientology as a non-religious organisation, I’m sure Australia can manage it, too.
Artist - it’s not a question of whether Scientology (or any thing else) is a religion or not, it’s a matter of determining if they are involved in criminal activity. This discussion thread has also delved into asking the question as to why religious organisations are automatically assumed to be a good thing, and are granted massive tax breaks accordingly.
You are free to believe whatever you like and attend ceremonies, chant things, dress in funny clothes, whatever you want, but why should everyone else subsidise your delusions? The High Court ruling you refer to begrudgingly classified $cientology as a religion for tax purposes - this is the point we’re contesting, but just for Xenu worshippers but for all other mythical gods as well.
No one is suggesting religions be banned (although I personally wish people would make decision based on real evidence rather than fantastic ideas), rather they should be taxed if they cannot adequately demonstrate their benefits to society and the methods by which they make those decisions.
Yes you are absolutely right Xenophon started out months ago to attack the Church Of Scientology’s tax-exempt status.
However, unlike the French stunt that is illegal per The European Human Rights Courts rulings, and even the French know it will be overturned. After all who else would blow up the Rainbow Warrior in New Zealand, and pollute the Pacific with radioactive fallout but the French government?
My point is what is Xenophon’s real motives if there’s no existing legal basis for his attack? Xenophon has not as yet called for an amendment to the Australian Constitution, is this his real motive?
He started with a cry for taxing a religion which is funded by its members. The members have already been taxed, so he is calling for double taxation is it?
The NSW police had already long ago investigated and cleared the allegations made by the traitors already expunged from the religion.
As the Cape York Institute points out in The Australian yesterday there is no legal remedy available to Xenephon as the Constitution prohibits it.
The European Court of Human Rights will overturn the French government’s attack on The Church of Scientology likewise, its another stunt.
The government and the taxpayers do not subsidise The Church Of Scientology that is a lie - they have not received one cent from government sources - their parishioners fund the activities of The Church of Scientology. It is an untruth in the first place to say the Australian taxpayer funds The Church of Scientology.
So then my point is just what is behind of Xenophon? – is he a puppet in this game? Or for a professional lawyer with 15 years experience, including 10 years in the SA Parliament has he lost his legal skills?
Today the Xenophon inspired attack has broadened in The Sunday Telegraph to attack the United Nations Human Rights initiative to educate school children denied education by suppressive Education Ministries. The United Nations has mounted the biggest campaign in history to educate youth about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
All major religions in Australia help the UN with this effort to overcome the suppression of Human Rights education in schools by Education Ministries and back the Un Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
It is also part of the UN’s effort to stop the drugging of school children with Ritalin and other medications paid for by national governments. Education Ministries support the drugging of children by psychiatrists with Ritalin but not Human Rights education backed by the United Nations?
The truth is the government does fund the drugging of unborn children through financial support to groups like Beyond Blue to screen pregnant women for fake psychiatry diagnoses.
Interesting to see as the players reveal themselves that people like Senator Bolkus are starting to show up in the debate out of the blue as reported in the Sunday Telegraph.
The truth is that the government is funding the screening and drugging of children and pregnant women for many, many millions of dollars and The church of Scientology openly fights this with funds from its members, not funds from the government.
The government funds ex-politicians like Kennett’s Beyond Blue psychiatric backed group who are as we speak targeting and screening kids and pregnant women to drug them with psychotropic drugs funded by the government.
What club do you know that is funded by donations from its members that is taxed by the government - it is nonsense.
So I repeat “What is Xenophon really up to?”
I was waiting for a Scientology representative to join the debate. They may be crazy but they’re not unpredictable.
As expected Scientology response is:
1: Assign sinister motives to Xenophon and distract from the issues he raised by attacking his character
2: Ensuring they have unwilling support from all religions by turning the debate away from taxing business enterprises of religious institutions and turning it into an attack on religion itself
3: Turn attention away from genuine questions about secretive scientology practises with hysterical accusations of government conspiracies against poor defenceless unborn babies.
“Artists for Human Rights” (?!) is that really the best you can do? This is Crikey, not the Herald Sun, that kind of rubbish just won’t fly here.
Peter Griffiths has 62 websites to his name. If they’re all spewing out this stuff, it’s an appalling misuse of server space and telecomm lines.
Has it crossed your mind, Peter, perhaps in the wee small hours when a smidgeon of doubt might filter through the insulating wall of your delusion, that Nick Xenophon and others like him are acting in good faith? Mightn’t they be genuinely concerned about those you call traitors (doesn’t that give the game away!) whose experience of your cult’s obsession with mind control has been so traumatic? Are you really that insensitive to the plight of the poor dupes that your organisation took advantage of?
Artist, [Edit - no insults please]
Let’s have a look at your response:
“However, unlike the French stunt that is illegal per The European Human Rights Courts rulings, and even the French know it will be overturned.”
Fining an organisation for gross misconduct and fraud is not a violation of their human rights. The “church” was convicted of acting against the best interests of the French people, and were convicted accordingly.
“After all who else would blow up the Rainbow Warrior in New Zealand, and pollute the Pacific with radioactive fallout but the French government?”
Chalk on ad hominem attack.
“My point is what is Xenophon’s real motives if there’s no existing legal basis for his attack? Xenophon has not as yet called for an amendment to the Australian Constitution, is this his real motive?”
Pure speculation as to the motives of a man without addressing the issues at hand. Chalk another ad hominem.
“He started with a cry for taxing a religion which is funded by its members. The members have already been taxed, so he is calling for double taxation is it?”
Given that donations to “religious organisations” are tax deductible, I fail to see how it’s double taxation. Moreover, I pay PAYG tax yet when I visit the corner store I also pat GST - by your bad logic this is also double taxation. A smell a red herring.
“The NSW police had already long ago investigated and cleared the allegations made by the traitors already expunged from the religion”
Traitors? Strong words. Nevertheless, IF these are the same allegations then I concede, however it says nothing to the point of their secretive behaviour, societal benefit, or on going tax exempt status.
“As the Cape York Institute points out in The Australian yesterday there is no legal remedy available to Xenephon as the Constitution prohibits it.”
Section 116 ensures the Federal Government cannot make any law discriminating for or against any particular religion (however you define them). Treating all religions the same does not discriminate, so does not violate the Constitution. What’ s more, we routinely ban organisations from operating within Australian borders, even if they do claim to be religious. Care to spin again?
“The European Court of Human Rights will overturn the French government’s attack on The Church of Scientology likewise, its another stunt.”
Pure speculation.
“The government and the taxpayers do not subsidise The Church Of Scientology that is a lie - they have not received one cent from government sources - their parishioners fund the activities of The Church of Scientology. It is an untruth in the first place to say the Australian taxpayer funds The Church of Scientology.”
Government subsidies have nothing to due with the topic at hand. By not taxing the organisation they are effectively subsidised compared to those which pull their own weight. Another red herring.
“So then my point is just what is behind of Xenophon? – is he a puppet in this game? Or for a professional lawyer with 15 years experience, including 10 years in the SA Parliament has he lost his legal skills?”
Ad hominem, again.
“Today the Xenophon inspired attack has broadened in The Sunday Telegraph to attack the United Nations Human Rights initiative to educate school children denied education by suppressive Education Ministries. The United Nations has mounted the biggest campaign in history to educate youth about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”
What does this have to do with the topic?
“All major religions in Australia help the UN with this effort to overcome the suppression of Human Rights education in schools by Education Ministries and back the Un Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”
Good for them. So what?
“It is also part of the UN’s effort to stop the drugging of school children with Ritalin and other medications paid for by national governments. Education Ministries support the drugging of children by psychiatrists with Ritalin but not Human Rights education backed by the United Nations?”
You are a Xenu worshiper, aren’t you? WTF does any of this have to do with whether you should pay tax as a religion or not? None of these activities (at least on the surface) have anything to do with the tenants of your faith. (I say on the surface because the Hubbard toe lickers are dead set against psychologists - probably because they could see through L Ron’s brain washing techniques).
“The truth is the government does fund the drugging of unborn children through financial support to groups like Beyond Blue to screen pregnant women for fake psychiatry diagnoses.”
Oh no! Drug and kids. What has the world come to?
“Interesting to see as the players reveal themselves that people like Senator Bolkus are starting to show up in the debate out of the blue as reported in the Sunday Telegraph.”
You came out of the woodwork - guess there must be a Thetan conspiracy afoot.
“The truth is that the government is funding the screening and drugging of children and pregnant women for many, many millions of dollars and The church of Scientology openly fights this with funds from its members, not funds from the government.”
Keep fighting it if you want to - just pay your way. Of course, I will be standing opposite calling you out on your bullshit.
“The government funds ex-politicians like Kennett’s Beyond Blue psychiatric backed group who are as we speak targeting and screening kids and pregnant women to drug them with psychotropic drugs funded by the government.”
Why, oh why, won’t somebody think of the children.
“What club do you know that is funded by donations from its members that is taxed by the government - it is nonsense.”
All of them except the religious ones and the those who have fought long and hard to prove they exist solely for the good of society y (not just their members).
“So I repeat “What is Xenophon really up to?”
Keeping you [Edit] honest.
I was correct and it is a hot topic judging the amount of commentary. As I previously stated, religion like sport is a form of personal indulgence, and should not be subsidised by the taxpayer, (unless you are an acolyte of John Coates of course). Genuine charitable activity should be tax-deductible if the external benefits of the tax concession exceed the concession applied.
Purveyors of superstitious nonsense should pay taxes like anybody else, and this includes the so-called Church of Scientology whose ridiculous tenets are only exceeded by the theatre the Catholic Church in a transmutation of bread to flesh and water to wine (or that was Jesus), wine blood in the sacrament, and of course one could mention the virgin birth.
I am amused by the unwillingness of individuals such as “Artists for Human Rights”whose unwillingness to let us know his/her identity is only exceeded by his/her fundamental misunderstanding of taxation.
Whilst individual income is taxed, corporate entities with the exception of tax exempt bodies also pay tax. This includes company tax, and property taxes which tax-exempt bodies such as the Catholic Church and the Church of Scientology do not pay. As a consequence the general taxpayer is helping to fund personal indulgence of the adherents to these belief structures.
From ABC News just now:
“The New South Wales Government says the Church of Scientology is targeting Year 6 students using “marketing” material that claims to promote human rights.
Education Minister Verity Firth has ordered principals not to distribute DVDs and booklets funded by the church and sent to schools by a group called Youth For Human Rights.
The material outlines the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights and quotes Scientology founder L Ron Hubbard on a list of “famous human rights leaders”“
Youth For Human Rights, Artists for Human Rights, no doubt Animals for Human Rights… You have been busy, Peter.
NO RELIGION SHOULD BE TAX FREE: Exactly. Under the Australian Constitution we, the members of a secular state, have the freedom to chose our beliefs without earning the interference of bigoted priests, shamans, and the mentally constipated elements of the fundamental brotherhood of couch-potato- hood high- command elders, or any other possible religion. Not only do we have the freedom to chose our beliefs, we should have the freedom to not subsidise the above-mentioned leeches.
Please tell me whereabouts in our Constitution does it say the tax-payers should fund the churches? If anything our SECULAR CONSTITUTION could be held to have the belief we should be subsidised by the CHURCHES. They’re the ones who are out of synch with the Constitution, not us.
ANDREW SKEGG: That’s a fine piece of attempting to lead public opinion away from the real issue.
And the issue is NICK XENOPHON DIDN’T GO FAR ENOUGH: Indeed he did not. Religion itself is a gigantic con game. Our constitution gives us the right to choose our beliefs. It does not give the Churches the right to sponge off the rest of us. QED
I find soccer deathly boring, and I have bad memories of weird attitudes from various PE teachers over the years, but this doesn’t mean that my local community soccer club doesn’t deserve not-for-profit status. If anything, it probably needs legal protection from my self-righteous bigotry.
I’m not condoning the current situation with how religious organisations are treated under tax law. Hell, I’d wager that almost nobody here really understands what the current situation is; Australian tax law is not the most comprehensible topic of conversation at the best of times. But still, nobody has yet made a single rational argument as to why churches should be treated differently from any other not-for-profit organisation. I’ve been following this thread for almost a week, and I’m still waiting.
@Artist: What you are using is a logical fallacy called ‘poisoning the well’ - where adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say. Look it up on Wiki.
@Artist: Are you possibly a member? You probably should disclose this if you are.
@pseudonym,
You appear confused about the difference between not-for-profit organisations (an Americanism: I prefer the term “Charity”) and religious institutions.
NFP’s are not all charities, however charity ie the word used by the tax man.
Now, charities are tax-exempt for various activities (“charitable purposes”, if you like), and in rspect of various taxes, but not all.
Some bodies may be registered federally but not at a State level, and thus the mix of taxes to which various charities are subjected ranges from ALL to SOME.
Now, the definition of “charitable purposes” has been discussed above, and includes some religious purposes, but not all conceivable religious purposes, for example, activities which are illegal. Tax deductability for a religious organisation which sets up a fund to support gaol-breakers or drug diistribution would quickly be exposed for what it is and withdrawn.
As a starter, I suggest that the only substantial way in which churches are treated more generously than other charitable organisations is that some activities, such as the teaching of religion, may exempt from some taxes. I would like this exemption, at both State and Federal levels, to be extended to cover teaching of humanitarian principles, agnosticism and atheism. This would in no way breach the Constitution.
However, your request for argument as to why “churches should be treated differently from any other not-for-profit organisation” is too broad to be answerable.
Perhaps you seek an argument as to why teaching of religion is taxed differently than teaching of atheism, etc. In which case, I submit that there is no logical argument and the reason for this anomaly lies in historical power of the Church in Australian society 100-plus years back. And, by Church in this context, I mean Catholicism and Protestantism in their various forms - and other religions have ridden on the coat-tails of these faiths.
If only the Senator had called for an enquiry into Federal tax exemptions which are available to religious and charitable organisations operating within Australia, but with particular reference to the L Ron Hubbard brigade, this thread may have been better focussed, as also the parliamentary discussion.
@Meski:
1. He knows what he is trying to do.
2. Yes. See Janeshaw and Perrygretton, above.
PSEUDONYM: Churches are not for profit? What on earth have you been smoking?
Why do you think the Vatican bank exists; to manage their churches losses? I don’t think so. People queque up to throw money at the Vatican in order to purchase Papal knighthoods. An example being the late Joe Kennedy, father of President JFK.
Daddy Joe was banging every woman in Hollywood, he even banged his wife often enough to produce eight children. His long-suffering wife, Rose, was religion mad. Every time Joe, racketeer extrordinaire, had been too promiscuous and Rose got a case of the sulks. He would hurry off to Rome, spend a million or so bucks for which his good wife received yet another piece of worthless metal for her collection.
There is little the church of Rome hasn’t got it’s fingers into. Tourism-mega buck country, wine and vineyards-think Chateau Neuf du Pape. Think banking, insurance, the share market, book publishing, book shops, laundromats, the making of wigs, papal regalia, magnificent holdings of land, the worlds greatest collection of art draws multiple hundreds of thousands of tourists a year. (people don’t get to see these magnificent works of art for nothing). Lourdes, that tackeee blot of the soil of France which draws millions of the world’s most tragically sick and dying people. All of whom purchase special candles-made by another Vatican company, in fact I’m told the only thing missing from Lourdes is the clicking of turnstiles. Life savings by these weak-witted and desperate people are given tenderly to their favourite saint. The money is collected smartly by yet another Vatican enterprise, their own guarded-transport company and transferred to guess where? The Vatican bank, no less. The Church receives royalties on a bewildering amount of different items. There’s a Vatican hospital, and, I have a feeling they can issue their own stamps. And despite the collapse of the Vatican bank a few years ago, it proved not to be terminal. After all they have to have somewhere to store the rivers of this money into.
The Protestant religion has been far less acquisitive than their Catholic cousins. Still they have done rather well out of flogging off their old churches and cathederals. And I dare-say the Arch-bishopric of Canterbury does a roaring trade from the tourist industry. The Protestants don’t have the poverty trade in desperately poor and half-starved congregation who will throw any and every last centime at the their own much-loved saint, that the Catholics do But they don’t do too badly at all.
The Scientologists have squillions mainly thanks to their movie-star converts. And their audience of Sci-fi readers of their own publishing company, and movie goers.
And the Church of the Latter Day Saints aka The Mormons have one of the richest congregations in history. They too have their tentacles into everything. The Seventh Day Adventists make oceans of money, they have huge amounts in Australian water rights, and the pipes through which this precious liquid passes.
They have an astonishing in with the Australian Federal and State’s governments. They too are into insurance, car-parks, the share market, and everything else which will earn them a buck or two.
The money-making history of religious organisations is obscene. However, the greatest obscenity of all is that it is tax free. A huge Amazonian river of gold that, because the name of god has been waved all over it, not only is it free of taxes. Ha ha! It is even supported by the tax-payer. This golden river has governments pouring ever more gold into its waters.
None of the above was even thought possible by our founding fathers. And it is diametrically opposed to the Australian Constitution.
You say “Nobody has yet made a single rational argument as to why churches should be treated differently from any other not-for-profit organisation”. My point was you asked the wrong question, no offence intended, I assure you. These organisations are in fact, all-for-profit and should be taxed the same way the Australian public.
Errata: Although The Seventh Day Adventists are up to their elbows in money, when it comes to owning water-rights and the pipes which convey the water and have a huge in with Australian Federal and State’s governments, the religious group I meant to say was The Exclusive Brethren.
Mea Culpa!
Venise, once again a very rambling post and once again, showing little understanding of the subject matter.
I have no doubt that any tax deductability or exemptions applying to religious organisations apply only to specific purposes. Not generally, to normal investments and corporations. At least in Australia.
If you have a point to make about tax emption from general commercial activities, that would indeed be interesting, but it quite likely just ain’t so. If you contend otherwise, please elucidate.
For example, several organisations of which I am a member (none religious) have to maintain separate bank accounts for tax-exempt earnings and donations. These are audited annually in accordance with the exemptions which are authorised by the Tax Office or similar, to verify that there has been no non-approved usage of the funds. In this way I know that Rotary clubs, bush fire brigades and so forth are not generally tax exempt: they may have specific tax exemptions as provided by law in relation to purchase of fire equipment, but the greater majority by far of their income is not exempt in any way.
This said, I wish that tax emptions for religious purposes, including the teaching of religion, were repealed and/or that exemptions be extended to cover scepticics (read: atheism and agnosticism) and humanists the same benefits.
Online petition - Support a Senate Inquiry into the Church of Scientology
People sponsored by Anon Group petitioning for Inquiry jailed in New York for Attacking Australian PM Rudd’s website
Artist,
You have no idea who Anonymous are. You don’t get it. They are not an underground hate group (as your clandestine organisation has labelled them), they are an emergent property of society at large. They are the made from its many individuals acting according to their own rules and moralities out of which forms a pattern of behaviour. Individual people come and go at any point. There is no leader. No organisation. No tangible target for your lawyers to acquire.
While I do not condone the criminal actions of any individual, I understand their motivations. The cult of $cientology has been exposed for the massive fraud it truly is. Thanks to the internet we have all seen your bizarre OT, auditing, and procedural documents which detail the fantastic claims made by your founding sci-fi author.
If you really do have the technology to save humanity, then bring it out in the open so that we can test it, refine it, make it publicly available in every hospital, and care facility in the country. Just like any other company you can retain the rights to the technology, save millions of people, and make an absolute fortune in the process. I am sure the government would gladly give you massive grants to develop your product if it’s actually shown to work. So how about it?
By the way, I do not think anyone here is impressed by a “news” article published by the cult itself:
“FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Karin Pouw
Church of Scientology International
(323)960-3500
mediarelations@scientology.org
SOURCE Church of Scientology International”
Yawn.
The above link is bullshit. Posted by a Scientologist.
In other news, Ibid claimed responsibility for the attack. :^)
@Gibbot Absolutely! And be careful folks. They followed the link back to my website and started sending pro-scientology links to every email address they could find. I wonder how many souls have been saved for Xenu by spam?
Great article.
Thanks.
Yet another putrid article by a leftie who has lived a comfortable life and obviously never had need for the services provided by the many charitable institutions in this state, be they religious or not.
We tax people in order to redistribute the money into services. Religions provide a host of services. Whether you like it or not, making them all tax exempt is the easiest way to allow them to provide those services. The alternative is to tax them, waste half the taxes paying for public servants to decide where the money goes, and then end up sending the remaining money back to religious institutions when the government decides that they need the services.
Great idea.
JOHN BENNETTS: I am so devastated about the rambling-ness of my comment. But I have rambled on many occasions. Yet this is the first time you have objected to my syntax. NOTE I said syntax, I know we differ frequently with our opinions.
Hummmmn. Thinks; During this thread you have fronted up to the jump of religion a few times, then sort of cantered sideways, or ducked-out as we horsey types say. Perhaps you should front up to it again. But this time take the jump and admit that you are a believer.
There’s no shame in being a believer-unless you think so.
@J Falcone: You obviously haven’t read the comments on this thread or understood the article. There’s no issue with charitable purposes, only with with tax exemptions for the furtherance of religion per se.
@ J. Falcone - Where organisations act as charities they should adhere to the same rules as everybody else. If they want tax except status they should demonstrate they deserve it just like everyone else. However, I still fail to see why I should fund other peoples delusional fantasies. By all means have your religion, but don’t ask me to pay for it.
Venise Alstergren is confused again. I am neither religious nor a horse.
No, I am not ashamed. I really do not cover up on line. Non-believer, caring, perhaps a bit left of centre.
Goodness knows why I am even writing this explanation, because it is consistent with everything I have ever posted. I don’t quite know what is meant by the statement re syntax.
On this thread, I have consistently sought to draw attention to the real situation re tax liability of DGR (Deductable Gift Recipient) status of organisations and the many different ways that organisations can be exempted from taxes, both State and Federal, due to their status before the law - religious, charitable, tax exempt, etc. The number and type of taxes is varied, from Local Government to State to Federal and can be levied upon payrolls, income, land value, local government rates and so forth. The range is broad and there is no catagory of religion or private body which is, in all instances, “tax exempt”. This term is an oversimplification of the real world situation and is misleading, as I have stated several times.
Anybody who thinks that religions are exempt from the whole gamut of taxes is misguided, as also is anyone who thinks that other organisations which may be tax exempt for certain purposes are on a level footing with the God-Botherers.
Vernise, please proof read that which you post and try to be consistent and logical, both of which are at times beyond your grasp.
If you don’t understand the subject and/or the discussion, may I suggest that you resume your slumbers in private and leave the rest of us to stay on topic and rational?
In summary, I would welcome an inquiry into the tax exempt nature of religions and would also support similar exemptions from taxation in respect of humanism, atheism and so forth. If this is not popular, then I suggest that any tax exemption for propagation or teaching of religion should be banned.
So, get off your horse and concentrate on the debate. Please.
NEWS.com.au: Contrary to untruths submitted to the Australian Parliament in letters by Nick Xenophon:
“Based on detailed evidence, deputy state coroner Jacqueline Milledge ruled that Lauren’s (daughter of Paul Schofield) death was an accident and that an inquest was unnecessary…Two witness statements attest that Lauren was in the care of her father, Paul Schofield, and three teenagers at the time of the accident…
Both witness statements clearly attest that Paul Schofield was a matter of a few metres from his daughter when she fell down a flight of stairs.”
Based on detailed evidence, deputy state coroner Jacqueline Milledge ruled an inquest into Lauren’s death was unnecessary.”
Senator Xenophon has exploited this personal tragedy and made some shocking and untrue allegations to impugn the reputation of the Church of Scientology
@Artist. You may have missed the point. The point was that the father alleged that the child was under the influence of a chemical recommended by the alleged cult. The coroner would not have known this if the father did not specifically bring it to light.
The father alleges that he was pressured not to reveal this information. Therein lies the issue.
@Artist: You may also want to improve the clarity of your post.
Don’t attribute that quote to NEWS.com.au. Attribute it to Virginia Stewart, cult spokesperson.
NEWS.com.au reports:
The church today said the allegations were false. “Based on detailed evidence, deputy state coroner Jacqueline Milledge ruled that Lauren’s death was an accident and that an inquest was unnecessary,” the church’s spokeswoman, Virginia Stewart, said in a statement.
JOHN BENNETTS: Your purile attempt at humour-para one-was not funny.
Shaw’s headline read “Xenophon didn’t go far enough: no religion should be tax free.”
AGREE? DISAGREE?
I agree: I cited some of the obscene wealth of some cults/religions to re-enforce my belief. My belief being NO RELIGION SHOULD BE TAX-FREE.
Are you with me so far?
Do you think you may err on the side of pedantry at all? A taxation expert’s opinion, although perfectly valid-in its place-does not make for riveting reading.
When I allude to something which is not at all germane to a subject-such as using horsy terms-it is a sure sign that someone is boring the pants off me. Okay?
PS: As you persist in putting an accountant’s view on what I believe to be a moral question. Perhaps you could bring that same orderly mind to concentrate on the spelling of my name. It is VENISE, it is the French for Venice. And if you have to call me something, I would rather it was Venice than Vernice. The actual name itself would, of course be preferable, Venise.
And yet another poster gets up the nose of the Toorak troll
We are delighted to be able to present you a STAGGERING NEW FILM that will give you and those you love vital information.
VIEW THE FILM HERE:
The Marketing of Madness
If you have ever thought or had the consideration that the way that depression is treated, with anti depressants or psychotropic drugs is a bit odd, or the fact that so many children and the elderly are being drugged today with heavy psychotropic drugs is not quite right….. WATCH THIS FILM and do PLEASE forward it on to everyone that you know.
If you keep this up, Peter, I may need a heavy dose of those drugs myself.
SBH: Honey, if you really want to get something off your, no doubt, bounteous chest, why don’t you just come out with it? And if you don’t want to come right out with it, just run along back to your home-birthers and their fascist ilk.
Tax the shit out of them all at double the going rate for all other business’s.
Surely god will recognise his own and take care of them.
Watch “The Muppets do Bohemian Rhapsody” instead. Far more educational.
The Muppets do Bohemian Rhapsody
I would VA but that darned moderator just stops the free flow of ideas, you now what it’s like
SBH: That I do know!
Cheers,
Venise
Publisher: AAP Newswire
Media Release: Church of Scientology
2009-11-24 21:27:29
Publication: AAP PR Releases
Media release distributed by AAP Medianet.
Church Responds to Second Xenophon Allegation
In a speech in the Senate last week, Senator Nick Xenophon made several allegations concerning the Church of Scientology, including one related to the tragic death of a two-and-a-half-year-old girl in February 2004.
The Church of Scientology is responding to each of these false allegations for the purpose of placing the truth in the public record. The facts are these:
In September 2005, Deputy State Coroner Dorelle Pinch concluded the child died following the accidental ingestion of some 30 potassium chloride tablets in the family home.
Senator Xenophon, in his speech last week, claimed potassium chloride was used by the girl’s father as part of the Purification Program of the Church of Scientology.
This is utterly false. Potassium chloride is not part of any Church program or service in Australia or internationally.
The Coroner’s finding said:
‘Mr S gave evidence that he started using potassium supplements around 1978. At that time he worked for the Department of Lands and was often required to work in rural areas of New South Wales in high temperatures. Apparently, one of his work colleagues recommended that he take potassium for salt depletion.
‘Mr S stated that he had been using the particular product Slow-K, a sustained release potassium preparation, for the last five years. He purchased this at various pharmacies in Sydney and in country centres’.
The Coroner’s findings in this case made no mention whatsoever of the Church of Scientology or its services, recognising that the Church was not involved in any way in this tragic incident.
There was no attempt by Church executives to interfere in either the police investigation of the death or the coronial investigation.
The truth about Scientology is simple. Our aims include a world without insanity, without criminals and without war. The Scientology religion recognises Man as a spiritual being with unlimited potential, and with care and compassion, the Church assists individuals to achieve spiritual freedom and happiness.
The Church of Scientology is also engaged in broad community programs including a drug prevention program that has reached over 500,000 individuals in Australia. Scientologists also support literacy programs for at-risk youth and provide humanitarian assistance in disaster areas and inner cities through the Scientology Volunteer Ministers Program.
Scientology has fought for religious freedom for all around the world. In a few countries, the Church has been forced to litigate the issue of its religiosity, either affirmatively or in response to outrageous unfounded charges. Inevitably, the Church has prevailed in these cases and its status as a world religion has been unequivocally recognised. Some of these decisions, including decisions by the Cassation Court in Italy and the 1983 decision by the High Court in Australia, are now considered by leading scholars and judicial authorities to have established the standards regarding religious recognition that all religions must meet.
Factual information about the Church of Scientology and its practices and many world-wide social programs can be viewed at its video channel http://www.scientology.org
The Coroner’s decision can be read at:
http:/www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/coroners_court/ll_coroners.nsf/vwFiles/KS.doc/$file/KS.doc
For more information:
Vicki Dunstan
0402 617 409
vicki.dunstan@scientology.net.au
SOURCE: Church of Scientology
Just a link to it would have been sufficient.