Keep reading and then you might see more.
And oh, I have a “religion” too. Check it out when you have the time.

http://paleochristianity.org/

I’ve read through the initial part of your link and it’s interesting. It will be a while before I find time to read the rest though.

I would be really interested in your thoughts on the idea of pathological leaders and how that connects to this post… though I can see where the dots connect.

http://www.sott.net

and so just checking your accuracy and your links that you provided in the article.

It was just a suggestion to read that article on Ponerology. You might then see the connection but it’s entirely up to you. Thanks.

Regards.

You’ll need to fatten out your thoughts for me in a comment rather than a link to a convoluted discussion about a book on Pathocracy and pathological leaders controlling politics and thus creating pathological societies.

http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/political_ponerology_lobaczewski.htm

Regards.

We on the other hand have vestiges of a hybrid union between church and state for ceremonial effect, but culturally the two are clearly separated. I’d rather have what we have than what the US has – but it would be no issue for me if things like the parliamentary prayer were dropped and various other Christian traditions that have little to no impact.

I have to admit to not having much of an opinion on the charitable status issue, but with various groups using the “advancement of religion” clause for their own gain – things like Scientology being a fine example – I would be happy to see a decent dialogue happening at an official level that removed that clause but paved the way for the benefits of religion to be recognized in the “beneficial to the community” clause.

Of course it would be useful to know what it is that actually makes people better when you go into prisons. Is it the message you bring or is it the fact that people are accepted and given support when they leave? Or both? Or something else?

(As an aside, Ralians don’t currently qualify under the “advances religion” clause because they do not have a supernatural aspect to their religion. But if they can demonstrate that society benefits, say, when they go to prisons then I’d be happy to help fund their prison missions).

The thing is, we can all agree on “beneficial to the community” but we ALL have different opinions about the various benefits of advancing a particular religion or belief.

Frank,
The origins of our tax exclusions for religions are, I believe, historical in basis. From England and the close relationship between church and state. We don’t have the same clear separation that the likes of France or the US have.

I think that the whole “beneficial to the community” is necessarily vague. It gives the Charities Commission a fair degree of leeway to use their discernment when approving a group for charity status. I’m OK with that kind of vagueness. I remain against the idea that a group should gain all the perks of a charity simply because they are a supernatural religion seeking to spread their message.

The difference between funding wild and wacky political parties is that this is a crucial part of the democratic process where we enable the ability to change who governs us and we don’t restrict what kind of policies constitutes a political party so long as they don’t trample on human rights. I’m happy to help fund Tamaki’s (now defunct) political party so long as it qualifies because this is an important part of democracy and the freedom to do away with the established powers. Funding of groups solely on the basis of the fact that they want to spread supernatural beliefs is not, in my opinion, what governments are supposed to do.

I guess this comes down to the deeper issue of the separation of church and state. What are your opinions on that?

Sorry for the long and involved replies. This is an interesting topic though and thanks for the reasonable discussion. (I’m not going to be able to give this proper attention over the next couple of days but will be reading any further comments with interest).

I’m not going to give my opinion

Looking at the definitions of what fits charitable status – education, poverty relief, religion and whatever else “is otherwise beneficial to the community”, I guess those who put that together originally saw religion as beneficial to the community and certainly, there are many stories where people’s lives have been turned around to become better citizens because of the advancement of religion into their lives. I’m one of them.

The problem we have is that a number of people have used the religion clause as a back-door for avoiding taxes and increasing their own wealth… and in some cases, abusing the lives of others. I’m all for some sort of change if it curbs the latter – the question is, what sort of change?

Does anyone know how the law defines the statement “beneficial to the community”? Understanding that one could open some doors.

In the meantime – there are political parties I don’t like and I resent that my taxes are used to pay some of their salaries and advertising during election time to advance their ideologies, some of which I think are destructive for our country. I don’t like that I’m forced to support the advancement of those ideas through the payment of money I worked hard to earn, but…

As an example, a friend of mine works in the faith-based unit of one of our larger prisons. The stats show that prisoners who go through this unit (they must apply) are 3-4 times less likely to re offend. The government loves the unit because it pads their stats for re offending in general.

My point is, I don’t think you could surgically divide what this group does between “community betterment” and “spreading of beliefs”. One informs and drives the other, and they result in real, tangible benefits for the community at large.

2. If there was a charity set up under the guise of education which, in fact, spent its time mis-educating people; sure, I’d have a very big problem with the specific misuse of charity status. Same for welfare, etc.

3. I believe that if churches were to have to show that their tax-free money actually went to activities that benefit the community rather than simply advancing their religion we would see an increase in benefit to society. Abuses such as the excesses we currently see would be less likely to happen because they’d not be able to wriggle out on some ethereal possibility that they may be advancing their religion.

To be honest, I can understand why someone currently in a church environment may feel that there is some hidden hook when an atheist suggests that we’d all be better off if we removed ‘advancing religion’ from the list of qualifications for charity status. But I believe this to be of genuine benefit to all of us. I believed it whilst still a Christian. You open yourself wide to corruption when all you have to do to receive tax breaks is try to spread your beliefs.

What’s more is that it is the *fair* thing to do. Do unto others and all that. If you know that you’d be unhappy indirectly funding the spread of a belief system that you happen to disagree with then it’s a simple matter to see what it must be like to have the shoe on the other foot.

By all means, spread your beliefs, shout them from the rooftops! But please stop making me fund you to do it. I’ll happily help pay for furthering education, alleviating suffering and otherwise building a better society.