Bethyada of True Paradigm offers us this guest post. I find it interesting because I wrote some thoughts about the New Zealand Association of Rationalist Humanist’s position on the issue of religious trusts having tax exemption in Equality or Hegemony: NZARH and Religious Trusts back in 2008. There I pointed out that humanist trusts that engage in the equivalent of evangelism for humanism are also tax exempt and promoted by the very same organisation. Anyway, Bethyada writes:
Ken Perrott wrote about several objections he had to religious charities, specifically churches, being tax exempt. This was in response to my thoughts on proposed tax law changes. Initially he made the unlikely (or perhaps hyperbolic) proposal of how to significantly reduce the tax burden,
Remove the classification of religion as a charity. That is allow charitable tax exemption only for genuine charity. Not for teaching of supernatural dogma.
Given that most churches make little surplus money, and taxes are on the profits of a company, this revenue stream is going to be very small. Charities are not able to make large amounts of money and spend it as they wish, they must put the money back into the charity’s cause.
Ken did also raise a related issue about the cost of charities being born by others. Philosophically I have sympathies with the potential issue he identifies; I object to both covering costs for other people that they should cover, and funding groups that promote ideology I disagree with. I can appreciate that an atheist would object to his money being used for Christian evangelism, much in the way that I object to my money being used to promote humanism. However I am not certain that churches are that costly.
Now tax exemption is not a direct cost, it is a refusal to tax. When Ken was asked what was the cost to him, his initial reply was twofold: religious charities were using publicly financed resources and they have a responsibility to share society’s financial burden. Interestingly Ken was happy to subsidise genuine charities. Interesting in that I am not certain I support the use of government money in supporting any charities, religious or non-religious.
Ken’s more detailed response can be read here. He covers several areas. His complaint is
- Religious organisations can get charity status and tax exemption but science, reason, or atheist organisations cannot register as charities;
- Churches do not pay rates, thus these services are covered by other people;
- Individuals can manipulate the system to their benefit;
- Charities offer fringe benefits;
- Charities have an unfair commercial advantage;
- Some religious people are morally corrupt; and
- Forced tithing has been important to the survival of the church.
I think the main issue is around item 2, but I will briefly address the others.
Item 1 is untrue. About 15% of the more than 25,000 charities in New Zealand are religious in nature. The criteria for charities are
- the relief of poverty
- the advancement of education
- the advancement of religion
- any other matters that are beneficial to the community.
There are plenty of charities in New Zealand that are involved in scientific research. Schools can be charities. Neither is tax exemption restricted to charities: some sports groups have tax exemption and some of them can also request charity status.
Item 3 is not unique to charities. Trusts can be misused, and some companies shift profit around the world to minimise tax. Simplifying tax law and minimising tax take are more likely to counter this problem.
Item 4 is irrelevant. Companies do this too. Individuals can allow people to stay with them and not charge board, though other people may have to. This is an issue of envy, not justice.
Item 5 could be a problem if true. It would need to be confirmed. Claims by business of unfair advantage may be an attempt to gain their own advantage, not necessarily because there is a legitimate unfair advantage. Offering my free services to any company, charity or not, is not an unfair commercial advantage, I am allowed to do what I want with my time.
Item 6 is true, but completely irrelevant.
Item 7 is irrelevant to New Zealand. It is more an issue in Europe. And I agree, forced tithing with money compulsory collected by the government and forwarded to the relevant church should not be compulsory based on your stated religion/ denomination. Preferably it should not be collected by the state at all. Some church organisations may struggle if this occurred, but that is not necessarily a bad thing.
Returning to the main issue, item 2: churches getting services that are paid for by others. This includes services that local and national government supply, the first via rates, the latter via taxes. Ken argues,
Churches, religious organisations, trusts, etc., are not paying their fare share of social costs – streets, rubbish, defense, health, emergency services, fire service, etc. Everything our taxes/rates are used for. The fair share my secular science and reasons organisation would have to pay.
Now I think that many of these things should be funded by the people using them. Rubbish does not need to be run by council, nor does water supply, or sewage. However the system is that these things are provided by council currently. So I agree that it is reasonable for the charities to pay towards these things, but let’s review specifics.
The costs should only be those that relate directly to the organisation and its property, not the people in it. This is because the individuals who are paid by the charity pay their own tax at the normal rates. So health costs for a person who works for a charity are contributed to from his personal tax. The organisation does not have any health costs. Conversely, if a church calls the police about vandalism to their property, then they are using this service as an organisation. So fire, police, water, sewage, rubbish are real costs incurred by the charity which if not paid by the charity are then covered by others. Health, defence, social welfare, retirement, education, are not costs that a church incurs and are covered by the individual tax of its workers. I have left off roading as it is mixed, though on balance is a minimal cost, and almost certainly covered by fuel taxes.
Charities do pay rates. Yes it is reduced to a nominal amount and may not cover the full cost of amenities, but they contribute toward it.
Charities can claim sales tax, but if they hold an event that they charge for they have to pay sales tax.
So the legitimate costs of charities associated with their tax exempt status are small. These categories (such as water) are not significant costs to government.
But how much do religious charities save government? The amount of food, counselling, shelter given to people in- and outside the church is enormous. It would easily dwarf any savings they make from not having to pay their contribution to say policing, and probably decreases policing costs indirectly.
Not that I think churches shouldn’t pay for water and rubbish. Ideally these would not be managed by the council anyway, and then everyone including the church would have to pay private providers who could choose whether or not they wished to discount charities. And everyone would pay the true cost, and likely pay much less. But the situation is that the direct costs of religious charities to the state is minor, and completely offset by the savings they provide.
RELATED POST:
Equality or Hegemony: NZARH and Religious Trusts
Tags: Bethyada · Charity · Ken Perrott · Tax Exemption152 Comments
A common objection to belief in the God of the Bible is that a good, kind, and loving deity would never command the wholesale slaughter of nations. In the tradition of his popular Is God a Moral Monster?, Paul Copan teams up with Matthew Flannagan to tackle some of the most confusing and uncomfortable passages of Scripture. Together they help the Christian and nonbeliever alike understand the biblical, theological, philosophical, and ethical implications of Old Testament warfare passages.
Bethyada – I may respond to this post with one of my own at Open Parachute. This is obviously a developing issue and I noticed in Australia that more people are now aware of this religious privilege, and concerned about it. Possibly because of Max Wallace’s recent book on the Purple Economy. Quite an exposure.
It is an area which needs more public scrutiny and debate.
However, at this stage let me just say you misrepresent me. I did not claim:
“Religious organisations can get charity status and tax exemption but science, reason, or atheist organisations cannot register as charities”
Not at all. l was solely referring to the religion exemption – not true charity exemption.
Charitable status for tax exemption
“. . . includes every charitable purpose, whether it relates to the relief of poverty, the advancement of education or religion, or any other matter beneficial to the community.”
So organisations I support, and ones you support can claim charitable status for work on poverty, education and matters of benefit to the community. They are genuine charitable purposes.
However, your church can claim charitable status on the basis ONLY that it is advancing supernatural ideology. I could do the same if I registered the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But I can’t get tax exemption to advance atheism – because that is not advancing supernaturalism.
This is the issue that needs addressing
There are a huge number of religious organisations who choose to register on the grounds of religion. So it must be profitable (and I think the figures probably support that.
I also think the intensity with which this privilege is defended by religious organisations and spokespeople also indicates how profitable it is. And also that a lot of their work is not really charitable, but religious.
Regarding rates – you are misinformed. The Local Government rating act says:
“Non-rateable includes
9 Land used solely or principally-
(a) as a place of religious worship:
(b) for a Sunday or Sabbath school or other form of religious education and not used for private pecuniary profit.
7 Land owned or used by, and for the purposes of, an institution for the instruction and training of students in theology and associated subjects, being land that does not exceed 1.5 hectares for any 1 institution.”
I think, these exemptions, together with benefits that can be claimed for educational purposes is a major reason why overseas religious organisations are setting up training institutes in New Zealand providing religious training mainly to overseas students.
I would like to see you develop/justify (with actual data) your final statement “the direct costs of religious charities to the state is minor, and completely offset by the savings they provide.”
What is the actual cost of that region exemption clause to the state?
What saving does sole religious activity (supernatural proselyting) provide to the sate?
(Be clear I do not want figures for genuine charitable work which religious groups, like other groups, do and get exemption for).
Some figures would be convincing – we could then compare them with the estimates given by Max Wallace.
Ken, I do not mind if atheism is included in religion. Originally the term would have referred to denominations, but I suspect non-Christian religions can gain exemption under the religion cause. As atheism is a theological position it seems fair to see the parallels to religion. Personally I would prefer the term worldview as it more accurately represents the positions of men over the centuries including the ancient Romans, previous Deists, and modern humanists.
A complaint that atheists cannot get exemption under religion if one do not think atheism should be called a religion is logically fallacious. But worldview would resolve any inconsistency.
I dispute that evangelism is non-charitable as historically it has relieved poverty and has lead to improvement in society by lessening criminal behaviour.
But you have gone from saying that religious charities cost you to them being a cash cow.
As to the former, I have demonstrated they do not. You may wish to look at figures. I may if I have the time, but why do you need exact numbers when the major government costs are well known. Health, Education, Welfare are the major costs which the charities are not using. Fire and policing are not large in comparison, as a percentage of the cost of any one company’s tax—minor. Even then it is only policing against property damage they should pay, not crimes against the person.
As to the latter, there may be a few cases but it is hardly a significant amount. Most pastors I know are not in the upper divisions of income. Several I know earn money elsewhere so they can work for free as the church does not have enough money to pay them. The reason there are so many is there are so many religious organisations. There are hundreds of churches and many other parachurch organisations. It does not mean they are all racking in the money. Further, many of them externally audit, and the new act makes this compulsory I believe. It is the high earning businessmen with their shifting income to tax havens offshore who are the rich, not the pastors.
As far as rates go, I have talked with our church treasurer and I know that they do pay a nominal amount towards rates, so I stand by my comment in the article.
Bethyada – perhaps you should point your treasurer at the legislation – he may be unaware. Or he may be misrepresenting the true situation to you.
You will also be aware that the religion classification was tested in the courts and specifically excludes atheism.
The simplest thing is to remove that 400 year old provision (well past its “use by date”) and put religion on the same footing as other organisations – surely?
You of course will remain vague about the real cost to the country. Truth is that only the Presbyterians actually post their financial information. There may be possibilities for getting proper reporting now that we do have a charities register. But not yet. (I suspect most church don’t even file tax returns)
However, there are estimates. The cost to the Australian state of this religion privilege has been estimated at $31 billion. Max Wallace estimates the cost to the NZ state is several 100 million dollars – probably more.
(Incidentally, Max is currently touting the idea of producing a documentary TV film to publicise this inequality. Should be interesting).
Of course beneficiaries of this privilege are going to minimize it, claim poverty, hide wealth, etc. Who can blame them – anyone in this position does. (Privilege does get in the way of human rights, doesn’t it?)
On the other hand people when they become aware of such things do get angry. Many years ago my Father was prosecuted for tax evasion. In those days part of the punishment was name publication and this led to a lot of angry abuse directed at the family, phone calls, etc.
The religion tax exemption in one of the dirty secrets the religion-state complex has in NZ. It is hardly ever talked about and of course attempts are made to minimise it when it becomes public.
I consider you and Matt have done a public service by being prepared to get into this debate.
As I said I will probably put my side of it in a more developed form on my blog Open Parachute in due course.
Hopefully other people, from both sides, will participate.
But I can’t get tax exemption to advance atheism
Ken, I doubt this statement is true. What evidence is there to support this assertion?
Reed, the statement is false, as I point out in the post linked to.
First, According to the March 2004 issue of the New Zealand Humanist the New Zealand humanist society has tax exempt status and in fact the article in question went on to instruct members what they needed to do to maintain this status.
Second, if you peruse a normal issue of The Open Society (formerly called The New Zealand Rationalist Humanist) and on the back page where addresses of various “Humanist organisations” are listed there is reference to a “New Zealand Humanist Charitable Trust’. NZARH’s 2001 journal has an entire article on this charitable trust. It states that “The named beneficiaries in the Trust deed are HSNZ and the New Zealand Association of Rationalists and Humanists (NZARH)” [emphasis mine] This article also tells us that the trusts purpose is not purely charitable, one of its functions is to “Provide funding for seminars and other educational activities to promote public understanding and discussion of ethics and Humanism;” and the article tells us that NZARH could use it to fund visiting speakers who promote the vision of the world and society which the New Zealand Association of Rationalist Humanists hold.
So there currently exist tax exempt charities which promote atheism.
Ken, like I said, atheism is a theological position. So the courts may have got it wrong, it has happened before.
I haven’t been vague. I have in my post aimed at clarity. Now it may take you 5 minutes to make an assertion, but even if it is false in can take some time to search for the information. I spent some time writing this post and reading around charities, talking to my treasurer, showing that atheists could have charities, and further making the explicit distinction between direct costs to others versus lost revenue.
You manage to obfuscate all this in with one sentence about charities costing $30 billion in Australia. Note that almost all of this is indirect cost through perceived lost income. I have no interest in defending indirect costs for several reasons. Firstly, the individuals do pay tax, so they fund these things. Secondly, the government taxes too much, I think they should decrease taxes to all people in NZ. Thirdly, indirect costs are notoriously poorly calculated. Almost all the assumptions made in them are questionable. Fourthly, I disagree with the effects. Less is more, so less tax leads to more economic growth which leads to increased wealth.
So what does Wallace claim are these direct costs?
Bethyada-the legal position is well established and is written Ito the commission’s definition if religion for charitable purposes. It specifically has axrequirement for supernatural beliefs and their promotion.
Wallace’s description, estimation, was for “loss of revenue from the tax exemptions awarded to churches, offsetting the value of their charitable work”.
Reed, have a look at the Charities Commission Website. Particularly the requirements for registration under the religion criteria. Advocacy and promotion of supernatural, not theological, beliefs are required.
Matt you should do the same.
You are attempting to confuse the issue as you already know the humanist trust is not registered under the religion criteria (that would be impossible with current application of the law).
It is registered, I think, under the education criteria and would therefore satisfy that criteria.
Now wouldn’t it be nice if churches gave up their priveliged position and registered under the same criteria that the humanists and other genuine charities use.
That would be the moral position.
Well then that is a different issue. I care little for claims of lost revenue, my post was to show that other people are not directly subsidising churches to any great extent.
Come off it. If churches are not paying their share of taxes via exemption the honest tacpayers are making up the difference. The Churches pay nothing, we pay for them. That amounts to a subsidy.
It’s a violation of the principles of our HR legislation.
It’s a moral issue.
Five mates and their families spend the day together. They have a few beers, send their kids to the movies. Splash out and buy them toys. Have dinner at a resteraunt drive home.
They share the costs. Shouting each other in turn for the drinks. They split the costs of the resteraunt meals, the movies and toys.
Except for one individual. He never shouts, doesn’t contribute to the costs of meals, movies, toys, petrol, etc. However, he insists on taking equally what he considers his own share.
When his mates complain at the end if the day he claims they have no right. They were not subdidising him. It’s just that there was loss of revenue.
Yeah, right.
You know what his mates thought of him, don’t you.
Ken – The Humanist Society of New Zealand’s charity application record states one of their charitable purposes as “religious activities.” A fraudulent application perhaps.
Do you have any examples of organisations being refused on the basis that they were atheists?
“There are a huge number of religious organisations who choose to register on the grounds of religion.”
My conclusion – the applicant ticked the box on the form that is the best description of the primary business of their organization.
Ken’s conclusion – registering on the grounds of religion makes and organisation more profitable.
Sorry, Ken, but bethyada already mentioned the church’s contributions to society. Your 5-friend scenario is therefore flawed. A more accurate scenario would be as follows:
5 friends go to a restaurant and order meals that would normally cost $20 each. That would be $100 total. After the meal, 4 of the friends continue to talk and joke and make merry while the 5th friend(the church) talks to the manager and offers services that he(and not his friends) will provide that result in the manager discounting the entire meal, say, 40%.
By this action, the 5th friend has already contributed the equivalent of $40 to the group’s meal. The remaining costs — $60 — then only come to $15 each instead of the original $20 each when split 4 ways.
Of course, the friends aren’t stupid. They know how things work, and this is the arrangement they have all agreed to. They allow their 5th friend to regularly “freeload” because they know that his actions will actually result in lower costs for all of them. That’s analogous to the effect churches have on the communities they are in(reducing police costs, providing funds and other aid to the poor, etc.). They are exempt from taxation because their contributions already far exceed what their taxes would have been.
So Ken, how much does the charities under religious category cost NZers? Any ball park figure what so ever and how you come up with that figure?
Anon, as I said above Max Wallace estimates several hundred million dollars or more. To date there has been very little information available with most churches probably not making returns.
However the new registration scheme means that returns are starting to appear. This could mean that in a few years time someone might be able to make a better estimate.
How did he/you come up/believe in ‘several hundred million dollars or more’? Especially if little information is known?
Out of those, how much are under religious category? Then how much from churches. These are important information! You should have that kind of figures before even start ranting.
There isn’t any indication here you know the numbers at all. You just assume it’s a big number.
Anon – he does refer to Sally Blundell’s 2008 Listener article. She reported 9700 tax exempt religious charities, was able to discover $534 million in donations. Could not discover anything on the substantial Investment income. Catholic and Anglican Churches refused to respond to queries.
I think his estimate is reasonable but probably low.
The equivalent Australian figure is $31 billion.
What exactly is a church’s “fair share of taxes” anyway, and how do you compute it? Is it on the basis of taxpayer-funded services provided to the church (which as described are likely few in number and low in cost, all the big Government bills paying for persons), or is it on the supposed basis that the churches are profit-making ventures and should be taxed like commercial enterprises because “it’s the principle of the thing” (which claim I strongly dispute)?
(This comment was made a few days back but seems to have been lost in moderation)
Yes Reed. Good on you for actually going to the register. Like someone who deals with actual evidence and data.
The Humanist Society is registered under the sector “Education / training / research” (NOT the religious sector) they (the society) include under this heading:
“Health
Religious activities
Arts / culture / heritage
International activities
Fund-raising
Ethics and Science”
So why don’t churches do the same? Why do they need the special supernatural clause?
They are obviously involved in activities not covered by normal interpretations of charity, education, or other benefits to society.
Perhaps you could explain?
You ask if I know of any atheist organisations turned down. Well how could they satisfy the requirement of supernatural worship and promotion? Forget about atheists – no organisation could qualify unless they declared supernatural beliefs.
(Be clear here that I am talking about the privileged religion criteria – not the genuine charitable criteria which atheists have no trouble satisfying. There would be not need under these to declare any religious/ethical beliefs).
I think they possibly would be successful registering a Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. While they would be promoting a fiction, it would satisfy the Commission’s requirements. Several “spiritualist” organisations have been successful. I think they should also be exposed as spongers.
LittleSheperd, – nice try.
I forgot to mention this story about the private arrangement with restaurant etc. This was one of the stories this guy told his mates. (He was well known as very effective story teller and generally known as a bullshitter. He was continually beating his chest and telling everyone what a wonderful guy he was and how he was helping the poor, etc.).
However, when he was used this story as a character recommendation in his trial the truth came out that he had actually not negotiated a reduction – more a “finders fee” to himself for people he brought to the restaurant.
Oh, the trial.
His friends also found out that not only was he a free loader but he had also had been regularly sexually interfering with his friends young children.
You know what, his ex- mates no longer took those stories seriously.
Remind you if anyone.
(By the way – the religion sector has got nothing to do with ethics, helping the poor, alleviating crime etc.,. It’s all to do with supernatural worship).
Tax is theft…It is a pagan invention and tithing in this Dispensation of grace is fraud, thus I cannot see why anyone would seek to give the rapacious state greater license to rob anyone! Moaning against religious organizations having a loophole is nothing more than spite.
We are all overtaxed!
This is a great article because you recognise that…
“… many of these things should be funded by the people using them. Rubbish does not need to be run by council, nor does water supply, or sewage. However the system is that these things are provided by council currently. So I agree that it is reasonable for the charities to pay towards these things,…”
I would extend your removal of these social services from the duties of councils/ government in favour of user pays to include… Health, social welfare, retirement, education…as you listed as the current burden of Individual taxation. Leaving the question of how to finance defense, police and the Legal system (Courts and prisons).
If that was all that I was being taxed for I would not moan about it that much yet even these legitimate duties of Government could be financed via a voluntary system, esp after the government has been removed from its current socialist usurpations.
In a Libertarian society belonging to a voluntary community, whether humanist of religious ought to have fringe benefits. These societies could take over such things as health, welfare, education, and thus make being a paid up member worthwhile…the great thing being these private organizations would have no means to force you to pay for things you don’t want or need as is the current travesty of Taxation.
Having said that demanding tithes in this age of grace is fraud, I only mean that It is contrary to the teachings of St Paul as I believe it, not fraud in the sense that it can or ought to be illegal any more than the fraud of teaching evolution can or ought to be illegal.
These things ought to be a matter of private choice ie If Bishop Tamaki demands that to be a member of his church you must be prepared to tithe, the truth is no one is forcing you to join his Mickey Mouse Club…It is a matter of religious liberty…thus tithing is a voluntary self imposed duty, and if the state is removed from education that private schools catering for the Children of atheists and voluntarily funded by atheist parents or benefactors…is a matter of religious liberty…a self imposed delusion.
The church today ought to be funded by voluntary charity which is consistent with Christian Liberty and Grace.
Reed & LittleSheperd, I have replied to you last comments.
Unfortunately this reply is held up by moderation. Some problem there but rest assured I have not ignored you
Ken, you started not wanting to subsidise the work of religious groups, a view I have sympathy with, but I have demonstrated that direct costs to others are minimal, and probably offset by the savings they create. Now you are asking that they contribute to causes that they do not use.
This position is less tenable, especially as this includes funding things that churches oppose, somewhat ironic after your complaint of them using your money against your wishes.
I too have a complaint.
I don’t drink to excess, one to two beers is my limit, and yet my tax dollars go to the health system which is used disproportionately by people who drink to excess.
Why should a disproportionate amount of my tax go to supporting an activity in which I don’t engage?
It’s not fair.
Jason & Bethyda. This is a simple human rights issue – easily determined by someone with sn objective and clear moral outlook.
You guys will wriggle and squirm to justify an unjust situation because you are benefitting from it. Any tax evader behaves that way.
Now that we have exhausted the legal situation you are in denial. Despite the data in the listener article and Max Wallaces book you attempt to play down the significance. Well I am not fooled. I know that several hundred million dollars a year could finance meaingful research, hospital beds, schools, etc. All benefitting the country which your supernatural worship and promotion doesn’t. You should pay for that out of your own pocket and keep your hands out of mine.
Did you just use the word “objective”?
I’m laughing my head off here.
Resorting to amateur psycho-analysis?
Attribution of motive to others?
Matt, where did you find this clown?
As for your assertions about the relative value of Christian religion, even Brian Tamaki (who is probably deserving of all the derision heaped upon him) has inspired many people to live lives free of drugs and crime.
Secular humanism is a wonderful religion for those regarding themselves as intellectual elites, but it doesn’t really get much traction outside that group. Christianity meanwhile cuts through all social groups and intellectual levels. No other system has been demonstrated to inspire civilized behaviour as effectively as couching moral values in divine duties. Even atheists like Peter Singer have acknowledged as much.
Your objection is as trivial as the example I posted. When you consider that devout Christians don’t generally abuse their bodies with narcotics, engage in risky sexual behaviour, or engage in random acts of violence, while being honour-bound to work hard and honestly pay their taxes, they’re already subsidising the health system.
Get private health insurance and keep your hands out of my pockets.
“Your objection is as trivial as the example I posted. When you consider that devout Christians don’t generally abuse their bodies with narcotics, engage in risky sexual behaviour, or engage in random acts of violence, while being honour-bound to work hard and honestly pay their taxes, they’re already subsidising the health system.”
When will Christians stop beating the whole “We Are More Moral” drum??? It is so frustrating because (i) it is blatantly false that Christians are more morally upright and (ii) it twists Christianity into being some sort of purity cult!
As for the tax issue… it just seems so obvious that Ken is right that I am almost hitting my hand against my head. If a group does not have to pay tax when everyone else does that is a tax subsidy for that group. You can whine on about how much you hate tax and how wonderful Ayn Rand is all you like but in our PRESENT economic setup where we DO communally fund big projects like roads… if you ain’t paying tax you are being subsidized by those who do. Its almost axiomatic in its simplicity
Max, over at Vox Day’s blog we have a saying. Put up, or shut up.
I listed some specific activities associated with the general culture, abuse of narcotics (including alcohol), risky sex, and random violence. The last two are significantly effected by the first.
Now I can’t prove that the teenagers and adults I see at church on a Sunday aren’t recovering from a Saturday night bender, but they certainly don’t look like it.
I do know that Brian Tamaki has some credibility with gang leaders and some of his congregation are drawn from gangs. I might not be able to prove that those members who left the gangs aren’t still engaging in illegal activities but given the constant scrutiny that he attracts, if they were there would be some public awareness, I don’t know of any.
Self-identified atheists tend to be drawn from institutes of higher learning. People from those groups tend to behave more ethically simply due to the education they receive and the background they come from.
This is not a statement comparing the morality of self-identified atheists with theists. It is a comparison of the morality of people from similar backgrounds, one having an active religious life, the other having a vague or non-existent religious life. It is only under those circumstances that any meaningful comparison can take place.
It is under those circumstances that people pursuing active Christian lives appear to do better than their peers.
Except in Dunedin of course. 😛
“Max, over at Vox Day’s blog we have a saying. Put up, or shut up.”
Fascinating. Do you find people punching you in the face often when you use quote this gem of wisdom?
“Now I can’t prove that the teenagers and adults I see at church on a Sunday aren’t recovering from a Saturday night bender, but they certainly don’t look like it.”
Anecdotal evidence. Kind of irrelevant – most of my friends are intelligent secularists who have no drug issues or criminal history… also anecdotal. Do my friends cancel out your friends? (And bytheby I hardly think getting drunk on a Saturday night is the greatest sin that goes on in this world – it is just one of the most visually obvious. How do you detect the child molesters by looking around the church for instance? I am sure their suit is just as smart, and their tie as straight as the saint sitting next to him).
“I do know that Brian Tamaki has some credibility with gang leaders and some of his congregation are drawn from gangs. I might not be able to prove that those members who left the gangs aren’t still engaging in illegal activities but given the constant scrutiny that he attracts, if they were there would be some public awareness, I don’t know of any.”
Surely you can find a better example than Tamaki? His lifestyle funded off the skin of his congregation hardly inspires admiration of Christian morality. It is pretty well documented that while he lives in luxury he encourages people in poverty to give up what little they have to pay him. Cases where ex-members talk about not having enough money to feed their kids and still being ‘encouraged’ (using guilt that oh so useful tool of so many Churches) to give Tamaki more money are sickening. Whatever good he may or may not do in his community is AT LEAST canceled out by the negative impact he is having on people’s lives.
“Self-identified atheists tend to be drawn from institutes of higher learning. People from those groups tend to behave more ethically simply due to the education they receive and the background they come from.”
So their education, which influences their world view, even by your admission is what makes them behave more ethically? But then you are admitting that the “Self-identified atheist” worldview (drawn from their higher education in part, and their upbringing in part) is one that leads to better ethical behavior than the Christian worldview! Now I am not an atheist so I don’t like that conclusion anymore than you do, but I feel compelled to take your argument where it leads whether I like it or not!
“It is under those circumstances that people pursuing active Christian lives appear to do better than their peers.”
Yes – you have already said this and then given a smattering of anecdotal evidence and some arguments that actually lead to the opposite conclusion.
With the risk of sounding like a self-righteous prig could I suggest that you, what was it again? Ah yes! “Put up, or shut up”
Ken I retrieved your third comment from the moderation queue and approved it per your email request. Then I received a request for deletion of that comment in my inbox from you. Then I saw you commenting wondering where your comment was so I retrieved it from the trash and re-instated it.
I found all this rather confusing, both your conflicting requests and that fact that moderation had grabbed it in the first place because, as you know, we don’t really do much moderation here. There must have been some word or combination of words that it did not like.
Anyway, let me know if you I have it correct now. Is anything still missing? Is there anything you still want deleted?
Thanks Madeleine, I think that’s the right one. I got confused because sometimes it’s hard to read the fine print or otherwise know what is happening when posting from an iPod.
I checked Sally Blundell’s Listener article in case my figures were wrong. They weren’t but it is a good balanced article that commenters could profItably read. It is in the February 2-8, 2008, Vol 212, no 3534 issue. Title “The God Dividend”. It’s on their web site (www.listener,co.nz) so easy to
Ken This is a simple human rights issue – easily determined by someone with sn objective and clear moral outlook.
It is not simple, neither is it clearly a human rights issue. Many claim that only negative human rights do not exist, not positive ones.
You guys will wriggle and squirm to justify an unjust situation because you are benefitting from it.
I have done neither. Attempting to clarify an issue is not squirming. I am not certain how you think I am financially benefiting from this? I pay too much tax and I give money to our church, not them to me.
Any tax evader behaves that way. Now that we have exhausted the legal situation you are in denial. Despite the data in the listener article and Max Wallaces book you attempt to play down the significance. Well I am not fooled. I know that several hundred million dollars a year could finance meaingful research, hospital beds, schools, etc.
You do not wish to subsidise the churches’ use of water and waste so how do you justify demanding churches should fund research, hospitals, and schools?
Max If a group does not have to pay tax when everyone else does that is a tax subsidy for that group.
Possibly, but not necessarily. If they use none of the services then there is no subsidy. If they are not competing commercially there is no competitive advantage.
“Max If a group does not have to pay tax when everyone else does that is a tax subsidy for that group.
Possibly, but not necessarily. If they use none of the services then there is no subsidy. If they are not competing commercially there is no competitive advantage.”
I always try to look at the situation in the real world… for instance: Are most Churches located on roads? Will the police respond if a church calls them? Will a fire engine come to put out a burning church? Your hypothetical ” If they use none of the services” is so far removed from reality as to be irrelevant.
As for “competitive advantage”… irrelevant. I am talking about not paying for the use of services others pay for.
Max, I have already covered this. Read my last paragraph. But you are shifting the goal posts, your comment was If a group does not have to pay tax when everyone else does that is a tax subsidy for that group. Tax covers several things, the majority of which the church as an organisation does not use. So I ask you what I asked Ken:
You do not wish to subsidise the churches’ use of water and waste (or police and fire) so how do you justify demanding churches should fund welfare, hospitals, and schools?
“You do not wish to subsidise the churches’ use of water and waste (or police and fire) so how do you justify demanding churches should fund welfare, hospitals, and schools?”
You miss my point entirely. I have NO problem subsidizing the churches use of all sorts of facilities. The point is that this should not be a one way path.
The people in church already paid tax. Tithe donations obviously come from after tax income. Churches are the largest charitable organisations that people care about enough to voluntarily put their money where their mouth is.
Churches more than pay their way in society with measurable social benefits, including outreach and service programmes, all sorts of help offered to their members, networking, encouragement, and spiritual sustenance. Their independent voice is a useful contribution to the public sphere and democracy.
This rhetoric is a dishonest attempt to undermine an organisation that clearly benefits many people, purely for vindictive ideological reasons. For all their vaunted freethinking, atheism would love to shut down churches because they don’t like the message.
Do Ken & Max want churchgoers to be double taxed?
Do Ken & Max oppose freedom of religion?
Do Ken & Max oppose freedom of association?
Do Ken & Max oppose freedom of thought?
Apparently so.
Ropata, whenever people feel the wallet threatened they are prepared to whine and lie, distort the evidence and confuse the issues. Their motive us obvious – monetary not spiritual.
Any donation I max to a registered charity cab be claimed agaist taxes. I then don’t pay tax on that part of my income I have donated.
This is a human rights issue as those making donations and the organisations themselves get a free ride for all sorts if social services. We who do pay tax are subsidizing them.
Now I have no trouble subsidizing irganisations and individuals involved in education, research, health, counselling, helping people socially over poverty, etc.
But I object to subsidizing people and organisation just to worhsip and prosletyse a supernatural belief. I woukd not expect them to subsidise me in meeting and prosletysing atheist ideology, devil worship, etc.
Melbourne city estimated that the religion exemption on rates, for example , meant that other ratepayers were paying 10% more (or was it 20% – it’s in Sally Blundell’s article).
So this subsidy us real. Most people are unaware of it, it’s based on a law from 1600, it’s anachronistic, violates the essence of our human rights legislation, and should be stopped.
Ropata, a level is not suppresion of anyone’s freedom.
What you are demanding as continuance if a compulsory tithe on others. That is the violation of freedoms.
Bloody iPod. I of course meant “level playing field”.
Ken, the only issue lying behind your fake outrage is that you don’t think churches are real charities, and you think this way because you’re an atheist who doesn’t think that the propegation of Christianity is of any benefit since it’s not really true (setting aside the actual charity work that churches do).
So be honest. You just want the government to treat Christianity as false.
Glenn – you really should learn to honestly and objectively read what people say instead of ascribing attitudes and beliefs to them. That is a recipe for failure.
I want the government to be secular – to not take sides (for or against) for religions or lack of them (that seems consistent with our human rights legislation).
Some churches may well do charitable work (counseling, alleviation of poverty, education, other benefits to society). Some non-religious organisations do this too.
Al I want is the removal of supernatural worship and proselyting from our legal definition of charity (as I said an anomaly which goes back to 1600).
Genuine charitable work would not be affected by such a change – obviously
There are a lot of untrue things propagated in our society. I would not argue against the freedom to do this. Just that I don’t want to subsidise such endeavours.
And I want to be on a level playing field in countering such dishonest and untrue propaganda.
Just consider what would happen if that non-charitable provision was removed. If churches interested in doing charitable work registered under the other three clauses – just as other organisations do.
What would change? Would any charitable work stop? No of course not.
It’s just that there would then be a legal basis for challenging organisations who used such tax exemption to finance their supernatural worship and prosletysing.
To continually harp on about “charity work that churches do” is an attempt to divert and confuse the issue. I don’t deny some churches do and I am not against them claiming tax exemption for such genuine charitable work.
As I said – let’s have a level playing field. Human rights for all.
Your figure is likely to be grossly inaccurate Ken. If the churches paid the full rates or tax there may be a saving of perhaps 10% (initially), but we have already established that the majority of rates and taxes goes to things the churches do not use. If they are not using them you are not subsidising them. Why do you wish the churches pay for a new sports stadium? As I asked previously:
You do not wish to subsidise the churches’ use of water and waste so how do you justify demanding churches should fund research, hospitals, and schools?
Bethyda – “how do you justify demanding churches should fund research, hospitals, and schools?”
Same justification as for everyone else.
This is just a whiny argument. The law should be the law and apply to everyone. Individuals cannot decide to deduct from their tax payments because they do not want to pay for research, health, rubbish, or charities.
Stop avoiding the real issue. Should a legal interpretation from 1600 which defines supernatural worship and prosletysing as a charity be retained?
I say it violates the essence of our human rights legislation.
By the way – its not my figure. Its the one Melbourne City worked out.
Gee, Ken, I sure learned my lesson. I will now read what people say before replying….
Maybe you should actually reflect on your post – the one that I replied to, before assuming that I, and not you, am misunderstanding things. The fact is, you do not want the government to treat churches like a charity. In other words, you don’t think they actually do things for society liek charities do – in fact you said so yourself.
Of course the reason you think this is that you think religion is false and a waste of time – otherwise there would be no reason not to allow that churches are charities.
Now Ken, you may hold this private opinion. Go right ahead. Just don’t expect the government to share it and act on it. It’s all very well for you to claim that you want the governement to not take a stance on religion – but you need to think through all the implications of that.
Glenn, My attitude towards religion is quite seperate from attitudes towards charity. I know churches sometimes do charitable work (this doesn’t in my mind include supernatural worship and prosletysing). I have often donated money to such organiations for that reason.
That won’t change if we removed this anachronism from 1600 defining supernatural worship and prosletysing as charity. I think most NZers woukd also see it that way.
You have the freedom to do such worship. It’s guaranteed in our law. I just don’t think it is ethical for you to demand a compulsory tithe from me to support such worship.
Pay for it yourself.
And stop trying to pretend such a simple human right request is a demand to destroy Christianity. Its not. That is just a childish attempt to cloud the issue.
“Do Ken & Max want churchgoers to be double taxed?
Do Ken & Max oppose freedom of religion?
Do Ken & Max oppose freedom of association?
Do Ken & Max oppose freedom of thought?”
I can’t speak for Ken,but since you ask, the answers to your questions on order are:
No, No, No,and No.
But thanks for the almost textbook example of fallacies used in debates! Classic! To reply in kind:
Does Ropata want to chop the heads off all non-Christians?
Does Ropata want flat earth cosmology taught in all schools?
Does Ropata want to re-institute slavery?
Apparently so!
(see how silly that was now?)
Ken,
. criminals who convert to christian faith reduce costs to the justice system
. church food banks reduce costs to the welfare system
. christian virtues of honesty and fair dealing make the economy function
. christian values produce more nurses, teachers, social workers etc
. church communities and support networks have many intangible benefits
why are you so obsessed against church that you feel the need to campaign about a few dollars here and there?
Do you care about Hanover, Blue Chip, Bridgecorp etc?
Do you care that NZ is indebted to the eyeballs, heading down the same path as Iceland?
What about egregious tax evasion of the major Australian banks?
The technocratic elites that you worship have built a house of cards and the churches will have to pick up the pieces.
Ropata – these sort of claims can also be made for non-religious organisations. (And anyway, haven’t you heard of the immense cost the sexual and other abuse of children has been to the Irish state – less than half recovered from the church).
But tell me one reason why any of this positive work cannot be made under the genuine charitable provisions – as it is for many organisations (including religious ones).
Why do they have to register under the supernatural worship and prosletysing sector?
Ropata – Family First is registered under the Education / training / research sector. Cannot other organisations do the same?
Yes, Ropata, my anger at tax evaders is not restricted to the supernatural charities. Crooks are crooks – even when they claim their god’s blessing for what they do.
Hey Ken, go ahead and mention the 1600s again. Apparently you think it’s an awesome point.
So, the issue is that when religions encourage people to worship, offer religious counsel, engage in what they consider to constitute education and so forth, you personally think that this isn’t charitable work. You think it doesn’t really benefit anyone, because as far as your concerned, it’s all false.
Now Ken, as we live in a free society, you’re welcome to this private opinion. But you need to start appreciating the implications of asking the Government to live as though your private belief is true. It’s simply not compatible with the principles of a liberal democracy.
As for your desparate attempt to call me childish – please leave your stupid snide comments at home. I said nothing about destroying human rights. Just stick to the issue please.
Glenn, you are telling me what I think again. And if course, again, you are getting it wrong.
Why are you so embarassed about the vintage of this religious privelige?
And dont be silly. I know we live in a pluralist society. I can’t expect to imppose my views and beliefs on a government any more than you can.
But I can ask that we respect the essence if our human rights legislation and that we remove an anochronistic privelige granted for supernatural worship and prosletysing in 1600. That’s my democratic right, no matter how much that annoys you.
Ken Stop avoiding the real issue. Should a legal interpretation from 1600 which defines supernatural worship and prosletysing as a charity be retained?
I think the title of this post suggests what I was predominantly addressing. There may be several other issues, but I have shown that the claim that churches cost others directly is questionable (I think a negligible cost if at all).
The reason I called into question your 10% is because most of that 10% is costs that you wish the churches to bear even when they use none of it (such as health).
You are now saying that the churches should pay for things they don’t use to save you money on things you are likely to use.
The ironic thing is that these government costs grow. If the churches were to pay tax and rates, any money the government would gain is unlikely to be given back to you. Instead your costs would stay the same but more white elephants would be identified to fund.
Your comment about 1600 is invalid. “Do not murder” dates to Moses (~1500 BC) and earlier but the fact this law is thousands of years old does not out-date it.
I don’t have a strong desire to fight a change in law that makes churches pay rates, I am far more concerned about other abuses of government such as excessive taxation for all, regulating outside its domain, covetous leaders, increasing size, special favours for some (whether they be individuals or corporations), funding areas they should not.
As to your tithe complaint, this is not an issue in NZ and I have already agreed it should disappear elsewhere. Secular governments should have no role in collecting church monies.
But I have demonstrated that direct costs that the churches create are minor, and offset by their savings. That you wish to save even more by having churches help fund an already wasteful government by contributing to things that you personally value is actually a different issue.
Betyada, my article on supernatural charity is posted on Open Parachute tomorrow morning. It quotes from the appropriate legislation and shows the fallacy of many of the arguments being used to justify religious taxation privelige.
Of course not all Christian see it your way. They can appreciate the ethical issues and aren’t sidetracked by their wallet the way you are.
What a strange attitude Ken. Most churches operate on a shoestring budget, would not function apart from volunteers, and pastoring is certainly no way to get rich! Yet you seem to think they should be penalized if they dare to promulgate anything (supernatural) that is not approved by the Ken Perrott secular charities register. It’s not wallets that really bothers you is it? It’s this virulent gospel message that has persisted for millennia despite all sorts of false accusations and brutal injustice. . . and yet the church keeps growing! Weird and worrying for anti theists I am sure.
No penalty, Ropata. Just no privelige.
[…] a look at some of the recent discussion of this issue at two conservative Christian blogs MandM (Guest Post: Does Tax Exemption for Churches Directly Cost Taxpayers?) and True Paradigm (Does tax exemption for churches directly cost […]
Ken please read up on free exercise jurisprudence.
Well Madeleine – you could share your secret. What is the relevance, exactly, of free exercise jurisprudence to this discussion? Please be specific.
The most ironic thing is that a lot of these so called “liberal Christians” don’t believe in a welfare state or using tax for the benefit of those who have no money anyway!
They are supporters of user pays in housing, education, health, and welfare etc. …
AND YET! They still are using the fact that Churches provide welfare as a justification for why they should get a tax subsidy.
There is some hypocrisy going on here!
“But I object to subsidizing people and organisation just to worhsip and prosletyse a supernatural belief. I woukd not expect them to subsidise me in meeting and prosletysing atheist ideology, devil worship, etc.”
So Ken, can you state here for the record weather you think NZARH and the Humanist Trust should have charitable status, these organizations do proselytize atheist ideology?
<
The most ironic thing is that a lot of these so called “liberal Christians” don’t believe in a welfare state or using tax for the benefit of those who have no money anyway!
They are supporters of user pays in housing, education, health, and welfare etc. …
AND YET! They still are using the fact that Churches provide welfare as a justification for why they should get a tax subsidy.
This conflates forcing people to fund something with not taxing it in the first place.
For the record I have no problem with private schools, private hospitals , private housing that is provided for the poor having tax exemptions. So there is no hypocrisy here at all. I don’t think I am unique amongst conservatives here at all.
“This conflates forcing people to fund something with not taxing it in the first place. ”
This seems to be a sticking point. It seems simple enough to me that if EVERYONE ELSE is paying for something and ONE PERSON is not paying but is still using the resource that EVERYONE ELSE is subsidizing the ONE. You can try to wriggle out of this by saying they are not giving him anything… just not asking him to pay but this is wrong. They ARE giving him resources…
Matt.
The NZARH does not have charitable status (at least they are not on the register – give me the link if you think I am wrong).
The Humanist Charitable trust is registered – under Education / training / research. It is not registered under Religion.
If you think they are claiming exemption to fund activities outside the sector under which they are registered then you should make an official complaint.
Matt.
“The NZARH does not have charitable status (at least they are not on the register – give me the link if you think I am wrong).
The Humanist Charitable trust is registered – under Education / training / research. it is not registered under Religion.
If you think they are claiming exemption to fund activities outside the sector under which they are registered then you should make an official complaint.
Yes Ken, but you stated “ I object to subsidizing people and organisation just to worhhsip and prosletyse a supernatural belief. I would not expect them to subsidise me in meeting and prosletysing atheist ideology,” the question then is not whether its registered under, education or religion, or some other clause, the question is whether Christian’s are required to subsidize it.
So I ask again do you object to Christian’s being required to subsidize the humanist trust.
Do you stand by what you said in the above quote or don’t you?
Matt – I accept, and generally support, the charitable status accorded to education, research, training.
I do not accept or support the charity status accorded to religion – supernatural worship and prosletysing (originating from a 1600 understanding no longer accepted in modern society).
I think most people would find that unacceptable if they only heard about it. But you guys normally keep very quiet on this.
Personally I want the taxation laws changed to remove that part of the definition.
Of course there will be examples of organisations (and their activities) who I don’t support – yet they have charitable status under education etc.
Now – Christians may not like the educational and other charitable work funded by the Humanist Trust – but that is part of the deal for being a law abiding citizen.
I, for instance don’t like the work done by Family First and the NZ Training Centre. But I accept the deal. They are registered under education, training, research – not religion.
It would be up to me, if I was that concerned, to raise the issue with the commission and complain that their classifications were inappropriate. (I would have no chance of success regarding the training centre because they are involved in training/education, even though I don’t think theology is a genuine subject).
In essence (and this should be clear by now) my objection is to the special privilege accorded religion where they can register under a classification as a charity that others can’t. A classification arising 400 years ago and now well out of date. A classification which most people would probably not support – if they knew about it. A classification which clearly conflicts with the essence of our human rights legislation. And a classification which is obviously nothing to do with real genuine charity.
If you think the Humanist trust is classified inappropriately – then complain about it yourself. I, myself, am unaware of such evidence (then again I know very little about them).
This seems to be a sticking point. It seems simple enough to me that if EVERYONE ELSE is paying for something and ONE PERSON is not paying but is still using the resource that EVERYONE ELSE is subsidizing the ONE. You can try to wriggle out of this by saying they are not giving him anything… just not asking him to pay but this is wrong. They ARE giving him resources…
Not sure this situation is analogous. First in this situation everyone is paying and one person is not. But that’s not true in the charity situations true churches are not tax exempt but then again neither are non religious charities or educational trusts hence its not one person exempt that everyone else pays for but a group of people in a similar category being exempt.
Second, it’s not clear that everyone pays and the church does not, in fact the members of the church have paid for these services and the money that is not taxed had already been taxed through other lines of revenue.
Third, in your situation everyone pays for the resource and the one uses the resource free of charge and gives nothing back. But in the situation we are discussing this is not true either, everyone pays for welfare and education and hospitals via taxation and are provided it by the state. Churches and various religious groups however offer there own welfare educational and hospital serves to the community which they pay for themselves and are over and above the welfare provided by the state.
For the analogy to be accurate it would be more like this, everyone pays for a service, some of these other people are then not required to pay for it a second time if they organise themselves into a collective group that provides certain services back to the community that these people themselves pay out of their own pocket. This is not to me clearly a case of subsidization.
So Ken when you said that “I object to subsidizing people and organisation just to worhhsip and prosletyse a supernatural belief. I would not expect them to subsidise me in meeting and prosletysing atheist ideology,”
You were not being entirely honest, you in fact have no problem with Christians subsidizing “the meeting and prosletysing atheist ideology” this after all is precisely what the humanist trust does. What you object to is the law subsidizing the prostelysiation of supernatural beliefs.
Ken
A couple of other questions.
Would you object to a law that allowed ( following the US supreme court in US vSeeger) any “sincere and meaningful [secular belief system] which occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to that filled by the God of religious believers” to be classified under the religious clause?
Would you object to churches being granted chartible status under the education clause?
Matt – obviously people in Churches also pay taxes in other areas of their lives, but this is irrelevant. Its like saying that I can open a business in the evening and not pay any taxes on this because I am taxed on my daytime job!
But lets get it back to the real issue here – there ARE churches out there that are very wealthy through running what amounts to a business where they sell the equivalent of self-help products (which happen to have a supernatural twist).
If any other self-help business is taxed, why not the Church… and again the much repeated request: Please try to keep the discussion to the supernatural preaching part of the church and leave the charity issue aside… I DONT want to hear another word about charity!
“You were not being entirely honest, you in fact have no problem with Christians subsidizing “the meeting and prosletysing atheist ideology” this after all is precisely what the humanist trust does. What you object to is the law subsidizing the prostelysiation of supernatural beliefs.”
You are committing a common fallacy and should know better Matt. Your fallacy is like this:
Ken: A is really bad!
Matt: But B is bad too and you are not arguing against that!
Ken: No – I am talking about how A is bad in this discussion.
Matt: Yeah, but B is bad too! Therefore A is not bad!
What humanists may or may not be doing is irrelevant to Ken’s initial objection. That is another issue you might want to look into but an irrelevant one for this discussion… so lets here an answer which mentions neither Humanists OR Charity and finally get down to the real issue.
Max,
Your simplification is not quite accurate. I think issue (A) is whether tax law is just and fair to allow small tax exemptions on religious or charitable grounds.
If we are talking about justice and fairness it is a good principle to look for similar situations eg. (B) and see how the law is applied there.
Ken clearly feels that A is not fair.. whereas more balanced people are aware of a lot of positive effects that churches bring to a community, more than offsets any tax that could be gained for government coffers.
Ken clearly favours forcing non profit, struggling churches to tithe to government, despite their members already doing so individually
No Ropata – you have not grasped what I meant by A and B. Sorry.
Rather than stating what people say and think either read what they have said, or if that is not clear ask them. Making up what your imaginary friends may or may not think is of no interest to me.
Matt, I think I have made clear I support genuine charity independent of any ideological beliefs of the people or organisations inolved. I am just complaining about an ancient anachronism which provides a privelige to one section of the community by definig supernatural worship and prosletysing as a charity,
I think most NZers would think the same if they only knew about this little secret.
Some religious organisations do already register under the genuine charity sectors. I am forced to ask why any should register under religion. Perhaps their genuine charity status is very minor or missing completely.
Some of these organisation have got very rich and get away with, perhaps not murder, but probably child sexual and other abuse.
So yes. I say go for it. Get your church to register under the genuine charity sector rather than the anachronistic religion one. You will feel much better morally and the public charity status will be more genuine.
However, if you find it is not possible to register under the genuine charity sector because you can’t satisfy the criteria you will then gave to ask what your donations have been used for.
Max,
In fact I was critiquing your poor argument, if you would care to explain where I went wrong please do so. Or does justice and fairness not come into it?
” In fact I was critiquing your poor argument, if you would care to explain where I went wrong please do so”
Since you did not understand it you are hardly in a position to say it was a poor argument now are you? I’m sorry i can’t be bothered retyping what is already written above – just reread it. Or just make something up and argue against that instead. That seems to work.
Max, where you went wrong (and why Ropata and Matt are correct) is you see A and B as distinct, whereas they are not. Atheism does not get a free ride being “not religious” when atheism is in fact a theological position.
Ken complains that religious charities can proselytise under the religious category, but humanists can proselytise under the education category.
Max, you’re the one who’s off the tracks
If you can’t stick to the topic, use personal attacks
Don’t waste time with inconvenient facts
Just abuse the other side, you’re troll-boy MAX
(to the tune of “the Beverley Hillbillies”)
Max, your attempt to lecture Matt about knowing better is misplaced. Here’s what’s going on:
Ken: A is really bad!
Matt: Really? But YOUR reason for thinking that A is bad would commit you to condemning B, which you don’t. So maybe you don’t really think that reason is a good one, and you’re just picking on A for reasons of personal bias instead?
Ken: No – I am talking about how A is bad in this discussion.
Matt: Yeah, but you think there’s a REASON for saying that A is bad, yet you never apply that same reasoning elsewhere, so it looks like you’re enggaing in speacial pleading, only applying that reasoning when it comes to religion.
Far from being a “common fallacy,” it’s a perfectly sensible way to argue: To attempt to show the other person that they’re appealing to a principle that they themselves don’t really hold.
Ken, setting aside your emotive tactics (pretending to know that I feel embarassed), let’s see if you can show exactly how I have misrepresented your belief.
You don’t think that a church – as a church, a place of worship, teaching, Christian counsel etc – is doing anything charitable, and this is because you don’t these things achieve a charitable purpose.
Correct so far?
And you don’t these things really help people because you think they’re all based on falsehood.
Again, correct so far?
And because of this, you think that the government should treat churches as not being a charity just by virtue of being a church. You think that the governement should say that they need some other claim to being a charity.
Am I beginning to “get it wrong” yet, Ken? You’ve stated all these things yourself. These are the claims that I have attributed to you.
Now, you may proceed to show how I am “getting it wrong” by attributing these beliefs to you. Be specific please.
Glenn, I am not interested in your theological jelly wrestling. You guys will do anything (verbally) to avoid and confuse issues.
I think everything is clear. Read my last comment. I am not interested in continually restating it.
It’s a simple human rights issue. You are just trying to defend an ancient religious privilige.
ROPARTA:
“Just abuse the other side, you’re troll-boy MAX”
irony anyone?>
GLEN:
I would agree with you if Ken did actually believe in B… but he claims not to, so that should be the end of that line of argument.
AND:
“Ken complains that religious charities can proselytise under the religious category, but humanists can proselytise under the education category.”
Just because atheists are doing something, and Ken (I assume) is an atheist does not mean he actually supports them… there is no Catholic Atheism… Does Ken ever actually say he supports humanists using tax payer money to spread their ideology? Lets ask: YES/NO?
Max, you say “I would agree with you if Ken did actually believe in B…”
B, in Matt’s argument, is this “subsidising” of the humanist trust.
The only thing I was noting is the way that you mischaracterised Matt’s argument, while taking him to task for committing a fallacy.
Ken – see? You made a simple, fact based, testable claim about me, and as soon as I ask for proof of that claim you accuse me of “theological” jelly wrestling.
Honest as always. Indeed, as you say, “everything is clear.” The truth is that I represented your claims flawlessly, you just didn’t like seeing them stated so plainly, for it reveals that you do in fact want to see Ken’s personal convictions about religion endorsed by government.
There was nothing theological or jelly like about it. That comment was just a childish dismissal.
No, Glenn, I do not want to see my personal religious views endorsed by the goverment. We live in a pluralist society and the government should not be in the business of endorsing anyone’s religious views. It should be secular – keep out of religion and neutral to these views held by it’s citizens.
I am not interested in imposing my views on others. I say live and let live. And please let’s do away with ancient religious privilige.
OK, Ken, let’s zoom in a little: If you don’t want to see your personal stance on religion endorsed by the government, can you perhaps tell me whether or not you want the government to adopt your personal stance on whether religious worship, teaching and counselling does a service to people (as, say, education does, or things that various charities do)?
Glenn, my position is patently clear. Government should keep out of religious beliefs. It should be secular, neutral, on such matters. As I believe is the essence of our human rights legislation.
No endorsement means no priviliges.
We are close to this – only a few ancient anachronism to be got rid of.
Some other stats, which Ken has somehow overlooked (from 2004)
* 9890 non profit religious orgs recognised
* 7980 have 0 paid staff (ie volunteer driven)
* Statistics NZ identified 3,068 places of worship
* Total income was 752m, that’s a total of $245k per place of worship (pretty miniscule compared to a small business)
* Expenditure was 639m, ie. $208k average. So there’s a bit left over ($33k) for a rainy day or a building fund.
Religious activity relies heavily on the donations and bequests of individuals. Seventy-one percent of all income is in the form of donations compared with 24 percent for all non-profit institutions. [IN OTHER WORDS, OTHER NON PROFITS GET MONEY FROM SPONSORSHIP, BUT CHURCHES DO NOT] These donations come almost exclusively from households. Government does however play a role in the funding of religion as it does in all charitable institutions. This is done indirectly through the donations rebate administered by Inland Revenue. Any donations made to a registered donee institution are eligible for a one-third rebate, to a maximum rebate of $630
The tax department has far bigger fish to fry, such as Aussie banks swindling billions, property magnates hiding assets, investment companies turning to custard etc etc. I hope Ken’s inquisition is satisfied
Ropata – you are squirming and jelly wrestling again.
OK some churches may well be on the bones of their arse. Tough – a lot of us are like that but we don’t get tax exemption just for that.
If they are involved in genuine charity – well register as such and I am more than happy that they get tax exemption. I may even choose to donate to them.
But you must acknowledge (surely) that some churches are extremely wealthy. And people get pissed off when they see (e.g. the Anglicans and Catholics) with mansions (palaces) and huge investments. They get even more pissed off when their leaders (who have no idea how the man in the street lives) starts telling us what we should and shouldn’t do. And still more pissed off when we realise these moral pronouncements come from people who are either committing the most immoral of crimes, or conniving to protect the criminals and cover up the scandal.
The church has lost all moral respectability and authority it may once have had.
So, yes I am happy to pay extra taxes to cover for exemptions to organisations doing genuine charitable work. But I (and I think most people if they knew about it) am not happy about covering the exemptions of people to simply indulge in supernatural worship and proselytising. Especially when many of them are so obviously moral hypocrites.
It’s basically a human rights position, and therefore also an ethical question.
And, lets face it, your pronouncements on this particular question are not ethically based, they are financially based.
It really is financially based, rather than ethically based for a simple reason. They are arguing about how to protect the church (as a financial institution), and seem to care little about God or God’s message. I too find the palaces and lifestyles of the ecclesiastical elite to be obnoxious and an insult to people who come to the church seeking something to enrich their lives.
But I guess they have heaped up treasures on earth, so they have their reward.
@ Max “It really is financially based, rather than ethically based for a simple reason. They are arguing about how to protect the church (as a financial institution), and seem to care little about God or God’s message.”
Firstly, I am not sure who the “they” are that you are referring to. I assume you refer to commentators to this thread.
Yes, it is financially based, but you are misguided in your assumption that the arguments are for the protection of the church. The argument is that my donation to the church should be utilised undiluted for church activities. Just as a donation to a charity needs to be utilised for the activities of a charity undiluted.
Are you objecting to arguments on financial matters in a post on financial matters?
“I too find the palaces and lifestyles of the ecclesiastical elite to be obnoxious and an insult to people who come to the church seeking something to enrich their lives.”
It is the responsibility of members of the congregation to ensure that their donations in the church are utilised for the intended purpose. I humbly suggest that if your church leaders misuse your contribution to church activities, by building palaces and maintaining lavish lifestyles, call them to task or find another church.
“Firstly, I am not sure who the “they” are that you are referring to. I assume you refer to commentators to this thread.”
No – not at all. I meant the ecclesiastical parasites who suck the wealth form the poor and live lives of luxury – and anyone who supports their right to do so. If anyone on this thread falls into either of those groups then I meant them – otherwise I did not.
“The argument is that my donation to the church should be utilised undiluted for church activities. Just as a donation to a charity needs to be utilised for the activities of a charity undiluted.”
May I suggest that the small amount of taxation pales in comparison to the vast amount of wealth held by particularly the catholic church (but others also) – would you rather your money went to buying gold bullion to stock pile, or to buying Tamika another car or boat? If you want the money to be used undiluted then look to the church heirachy not to the taxman. Besides which, if you want your money to be used to help the poor and the disadvantaged… why on earth would you complain that some of it is going to the government who is the major provider of these services! Better that than the silly-hat-fund surely?
“Are you objecting to arguments on financial matters in a post on financial matters?”
What sort of sophism is that? You can see what I am objecting to by reading my words.
“It is the responsibility of members of the congregation to ensure that their donations in the church are utilised for the intended purpose. I humbly suggest that if your church leaders misuse your contribution to church activities, by building palaces and maintaining lavish lifestyles, call them to task or find another church.”
Very good advise – but the point of the matter is this: the catholic church (as a random example) has a huge stock portfolio, a gigantic real-estate empire, as well as stockpiles of gold and other valuable collectibles, and yet the taxpayer is subsidizing this huge financial empire – as well as some of their more poisonous and dangerous preaching – not to mention contributing to their legal fund to defend their so-called -priests against charges of abuse.
I can only thank God that our government and public service is not populated by too many mad ideologues like Max. That’s a seriously warped perspective.
Try looking for injustice closer to home, eg wealthy landlords profiting from the poor, rampant corporations extorting insane profits in the middle of a depression, complicit governments mortgaging the future of a whole generation, whalers exterminating endangered species, traffickers in slavery and misery etc etc.
But no, you’re all worked up because someone gets a tax break. Boo hoo.
Do you get Working for families? Ever been a student? On a benefit? Been to hospital? If so, you’ve gained something that many others have not. Not fair!
I’ve been in work for a long time, given a fair bit to the church, didn’t claim it all back by a long shot. The amount given to the church is nothing compared to the tax take.
Perhaps the religious tax exemption recognises that we are “first of all social, interdependent beings – free, but also bound. And because human community can only arise from some prevailing unity, society always has a natural and logical primacy over the individual. For the true libertarian, there is a connected stream of virtues, standards and institutions that must be distinguished and protected.
“Some of us feel excluded and stigmatized. Too bad! Since when does everybody get everything they want? Laws are written for the good of all society and not for the individual, the special rights advocates or the legal radicals.”
“I can only thank God that our government and public service is not populated by too many mad ideologues like Max. That’s a seriously warped perspective.”
Yes Ropata – of course God is on your side and against me. How wonderful it must be to know that for sure! Rather than just stating my perspective is warped – perhaps you could say why.
“Try looking for injustice closer to home”
Oh here comes that distraction game again… yes, there are other bad things too… so what? Yes there are other injustices…. so what? You can talk about them whenever you like and I may well agree with you… but they are irrelevant to this discussion. Listing 50 evil things in the world does not magically make my evil thing vanish,. A common strategy but a dishonest one.
“But no, you’re all worked up because someone gets a tax break. Boo hoo.”
That’s because that’s what this thread is about. Hellooo! If it was a column about whaling I would have talked about that and no doubt then you would say Boo Hoo Hoo – what about the starving children. As I said a mindless response.
“Do you get Working for families? Ever been a student? On a benefit? Been to hospital? If so, you’ve gained something that many others have not. Not fair!”
Irrelevant. I am not the one against taxation here. I am happy that there is taxation and that the government provides these services. So I am happy for everyone, and every business to pay taxation… It seems what you are saying actually supports what I am saying not what you seem to be trying to say.
“I’ve been in work for a long time, given a fair bit to the church, didn’t claim it all back by a long shot. The amount given to the church is nothing compared to the tax take.”
Interesting… so what?
“Perhaps the religious tax exemption recognises that we are “first of all social, interdependent beings – free, but also bound. And because human community can only arise from some prevailing unity, society always has a natural and logical primacy over the individual. For the true libertarian, there is a connected stream of virtues, standards and institutions that must be distinguished and protected.”
I am not sure what this last bit was about or what you wanted to prove by it. You need to try to concentrate on what I have actually said (eg. don’t make up things about my opinions) , and not to get off topic (eg. bringing whaling into a debate on tax evasion).
“Some of us feel excluded and stigmatized. Too bad! Since when does everybody get everything they want?”
Who are you even addressing this to? Who even said anything like this? You really need to address what people actually said.
“Laws are written for the good of all society and not for the individual, the special rights advocates or the legal radicals.”
Yes I agree. But I am not sure how this does anything other than support the fact that no one should get special treatment and be able to avoid/evade tax.
But you must acknowledge (surely) that some churches are extremely wealthy. And people get pissed off when they see (e.g. the Anglicans and Catholics) with mansions (palaces) and huge investments. They get even more pissed off when their leaders (who have no idea how the man in the street lives) starts telling us what we should and shouldn’t do. And still more pissed off when we realise these moral pronouncements come from people who are either committing the most immoral of crimes, or conniving to protect the criminals and cover up the scandal.
The church has lost all moral respectability and authority it may once have had.
So, yes I am happy to pay extra taxes to cover for exemptions to organisations doing genuine charitable work. But I (and I think most people if they knew about it) am not happy about covering the exemptions of people to simply indulge in supernatural worship and proselytising. Especially when many of them are so obviously moral hypocrites.
I see Ken so basically you have a stereo type that Christians are hypocrites and bad corrupt people, and criminals with no knowledge of how the man in the street lives ( I can assure you that most pastors deal with the tragedies the man in the street experiences probably more than the average man in the street does) and for this reason churches should not be “subsidized by the tax payer” . There is a word for this its called bigotry.
But your argument is also selective. Politicians are extremely wealthy, are paid much more than your average pastor, I venture many in wellington have no idea how the man in the street live, every law they pass is an attempt to tell us what to do, and many politicians have repeatedly shown themselves to be morally corrupt people who do not follow the rules they lay down. But of course you have no problem advocating that Churches be taxed and so be c compelled by law to fund the to fund institutions ran by these people so once again strangely we see you applying your logic only to churches.
“But your argument is also selective. Politicians are extremely wealthy…. etc ”
No! No! No! A thousand times No! This thread is not about corrupt politicians it is about churches and taxation! This whole distract to another issue tactic has to stop! Ken may well preach (excuse the word choice) against corrupt ineffectual politicians elsewhere for all I know! But PLEASE try to stick to the present issue!
Max – can you honestly not see the point of the argument?
Matt’s point is obviously that Ken doesn’t really believe in the strength of the argument he is using, and he would not apply it elsewhere. Ken is setting out conditions for why a thing shouldn’t receive taxpayer subsidy (which is how he sees tax exemption), yet those very conditions would rule out other things that he DOES allow taxpayer support for.
So YES YES YES! A totally fair point to make.
Ken says “Government should keep out of religious beliefs.”
Do you mean, then, that the government must not take the position that the religious work of churches is not a good that they do for people?
Because you stance on the charitable status of churches seems to undercut this.
Interesting…
The New Zealand Humanist Society is a registered Charity. They say on their page “who we are” (http://www.humanist.org.nz/whoweare.html):
“The Humanist Society of New Zealand (Inc) is an organisation that promotes Humanist philosophy and ideals.”
The New Zealand Humanist Charitable Trust is also a registered charity, but a separate one from the one listed above. This is what it does (http://www.humanist.org.nz/bone.html):
So let’s have no more deception about registered humanist charities and what they do. Yes Ken, I’m looking at you.
Matt, I have no stereotypes about christians. I am simply pointing out that the stereotype being presented here of selfless Christians living on the bones if their arse doing charitable work is no longer acceptable to the person in the street after all the exposures of hypocrisy.
This attempt to divert the problem suggests you maybe in denial.
Interesting, too, you seem to be advocating a position that Christians should be exempt from taxation because public money may be used for things they don’t approve of.
Figures.
“Christians should be exempt from taxation ”
What on earth?
Glenn, what is your difficulty over humanist charities? We have been over that before and I thought that situation was well understood.
Perhaps you missed that discussion
Go to the charities register and check out the sector they register under. They cannot register under religion because they don’t describe supernatural beliefs in their rules.
Ken, don’t act slow here, you can see exactly what’s happening.
They anounce on their websites – and nobody forced them to do this – that their goal is to propagate humanism and support those who do.
Now, if they claim to the Charities Comission that this counts as education, and you think the government should accept that this means that they have a legitimate charitable purpose, then I would like to know why you think that religion in general should not be regarded as having a charitable purpose by virtue of what they do.
They have humanism in their stated goals, and no other cause at all is advocated therein.
I too thought the situation was well understood, but evidently you don’t understand it. You want one kind of group (because it says that a supernatural being exists) to be excluded from having a legitimate charitable purposes for doing exactly what humanist groups do – groups that you think do have a legitimate charitable purpose.
Why should I subsidise the propagation of humanism? Where are your concerns about special privilege Ken?
Glenn:
I can see Matthew’s point – but it drags the argument into a debate about Ken’s beliefs rather than sticking to a debate about the issue itself. Ken may or may not be a hypocrite, but the issue can be addressed without addressing this side-issue. Matt may be right – but it is still a sidetracking technique which is frustrating when you want to hear actual arguments about the ISSUE – not about the people debating.
No Max, it’s not merely about Ken being a hypocrite. Sure, it has been shown that he has double standards, but the point is that there’s no real reason to HAVE that double standard. Since we don’t have that standard for politicians, we shouldn’t have it for churches.
You could always argue that since some church leaders are rich and corrupt, churches should get no taxpayer subsidy (which is how Ken sees it), but then you’d have a big problem in other areas, as Matt noted.
“Since we don’t have that standard for politicians, we shouldn’t have it for churches.”
But you must see there is another option! The other way to go would be to say we SHOULD have the same standard towards politicians. But that is another issue which can be addressed separately. It is like I say thieves should be in jail and someone goes AHA! But what about people that commit assault – why don’t you have a problem with them! I *may* have a problem with them… but that is another issue.
OK, Glenn, you have missed part of the discussion.
There are religious organisations registered under the education, training, research, sector. I think that’s where they should be. Morally it would be a more acceptable position.
The religion sector, which most seem to prefer, means they don’t have to satisfy any education, teaching, etc genuine charity criteria. Only that they provide a description of supernatural beliefs and their prosletysing.
Now if you want to qualify humanitarian education as the same as religious worship and prosletysing then the natural question is why have a seperate priveliged sector (religion) and why should so many religious organisations choose this sector? Especially as registration requires extra work (inclusion of evidence of belief in the rules). (Although obviously less work after registration is granted because no education or charity is required).
And if you consider these two sectors the same – why do you object to removing this anachronistic privelige? Just lump everything together?
As for my beliefs about religion etc. They are surely irrelevant. Personally I disagree with the work of the NZ Training Centre or theogical depts at universities. However they register under education so I don’t think they are takng advantage of an ancient anachronistic privilige. And clearly they at least go through education motions
The fact is that society accepts religious education as education (even if I don’t). It therefore accepts that educational charity status is valid.
However, I don’t think most people accept supernatural worship etc as charitable activity. I don’t think anyone suggests that it shouldn’t be allowed or is necessarily harmful, or not beneficial to some people Just something that shouldn’t be subdised by others. After all knitting us a beneficial activity for many people but I don’t think it should be subsidized by non-knitters.
Ken – what privilege?
See, just because you repeat that word, it isn’t going to become true.
But in any case, I haven’t said that churches should just accept that their charitable function is educational (although it is at least partly that). The issue that I have raised and tried to get you to interact with is that in law, the advancement of religion is itself a charitable purpose. You think that it isn’t, and that is the point. I am saying that while you’re welcome to think that this isn’t itself a charitable purpose, why should anyone buy the notion that the state should adopt your belief?
[…] interesting discussion broke out over at M and M recently about a guest post by bethyada on whether or not the tax exempt status of churches directly costs taxpayers. I’ll let his piece […]
Bloody hell, Glenn. You are confused aren’t you.
I have not said that ” in law” religion is not a charitable purpose. I have said the exact opposite – and quoted the relevant laws. That clearly provides a privilige to one section of the community. And a subsidy from the other section of the community.
I am saying that this privelige should be removed to bring our tax legislation into line with the essence of our human rights legislation.
I think you are purposely confusing things as a theological jelly wrestling tactic.
Heh Ken, you’re the one that’s confused.
Glenn pointed out that the law says (a), and you disagree with the law.
So you’ve (either through ironic or deliberate confusion – but you’re a moral guy so we’ll assume it’s ironic) avoided the question.
That question is, why should the law be changed to your view?
(Your view apparently being that the activity of Religious worship is a profit making activity of some sort…)
Ah Scrubone – you’re another one who likes telling people what they think!
I am detecting a pattern here!
No, I am not wanting the law changed to my point of view (at least specifically).
I am just wanting an anachronistic, archaic (goes back to 1600) privilege removed.
Its a human rights issue.
Most of us are for human rights, aren’t we?
Oh, by the way – if you want to know what I really think have a look at my post Avoiding tax – supernaturally.
It seems that people here are making assumptions based on what others say, rather than what I say. Glenn has even posted on his blog an attack on me without the courtesy of even referring to my post, let alone linking to it.
(But he still claims to know what I think!)
I am still a bit confused here.
First, it’s not clear why a law becomes bad, just because it’s old. The oldest statute law on the books in New Zealand dates back to the 13th century. I would argue that it’s a good law. It prohibits the government from arbitrarily throwing citizens in prison or confiscating their property.
It follows that, even if the religious exemption dates back to 1600, that does not per se make it bad. Archaic, yes. Anachronistic, not necessarily.
But even if it is archaic and anachronistic, that still doesn’t explain how it’s a “human rights issue”. Even supposing the Government is missing out on substantial income – which, by the way, the Government doesn’t have a right to, since it is currently disclaiming that right – what then? Does the tax exemption cause people to be killed or imprisoned unjustly, or tortured, or targeted in malicious attacks, or lead to censorship of speech or the press, or deny access to the courts, or any other such things? These are legitimate “human rights” issues (much as I hate using the term, since it’s so open to being used as a stick to bash opponents around the head with). But there is no “human right” to be satisfied by seeing others pay the amount of tax you think they should.
Ken, it may be my reading comprehension or lack of the same, but the only reasons I’ve been able to see why you think the religious exemption should be repealed are that religious activities are out of step with contemporary social values and don’t benefit society as a whole. These are both debatable points, and it seems Parliament doesn’t agree with you for the time being. By all means, argue them, but expect your arguments to be opposed.
By the way, I think that the lavish personal income and other such things seen in some parts of the church, outrageous as it may be, is quite simply a red herring. The fact that some church income is used for neither charitable (your definition) nor religious purposes does not, in and of itself, justify the removal of the religious exemption. At most, it can be used to argue that the Charities Commission should be more diligent in auditing churches and other religious organisations, especially those that seem to be unusually wealthy (or whose leaders somehow become unusually wealthy) – to make sure that they are meeting the criteria under which they registered.
Ken replied to me a while back; I don’t receive email notifications of replies on this blog for some reason, so that is why my response is so long in coming. Ken’s statements will appear in quotes.
“I forgot to mention this story about the private arrangement with restaurant etc. This was one of the stories this guy told his mates. (He was well known as very effective story teller and generally known as a bullshitter. He was continually beating his chest and telling everyone what a wonderful guy he was and how he was helping the poor, etc.).”
Was their bill or was it not $5 cheaper when he accompanied them than when he didn’t? This isn’t the kind of thing someone can fake. Either their bills were less than they otherwise would have been or they were not.
“However, when he was used this story as a character recommendation in his trial the truth came out that he had actually not negotiated a reduction – more a “finders fee” to himself for people he brought to the restaurant.”
This makes no sense. If his friends paid the restaurant $5 less each than they otherwise would have, where did the money the restaurant didn’t charge them go? Are you trying to say that the church somehow reduces the costs that everyone else pays *and* manages to increase its own profits at the expense of the government at the same time? If that’s the case, then you really have no room to complain since literally *everyone* except the government(the restaurant) wins in this scenario.
“His friends also found out that not only was he a free loader but he had also had been regularly sexually interfering with his friends young children.”
Considering that it was his own actions that resulted in the substantial discount that led to the other friends paying significantly less than they otherwise would have for a nice meal, he can’t rightly be called a freeloader.
As far as “sexually interfering,” I think you’re getting a bit off topic. Not to mention this particular sword cuts both ways. In an effort to be “religiously neutral,” as if that was even possible, the government-run schools often give advice to *our* children that we as Christians find absolutely heinous. Given the widespread reach of public schools, sexual interference is much more likely to cut us than you.
“You know what, his ex- mates no longer took those stories seriously.”
But their individual bills still came out to $5 less each than they would have had they not had him accompany them. What speaks louder? Some incoherent guy’s ramblings, or consistently saving $5 on your meal ticket?
“Remind you if anyone.”
You certainly reminded me that coherent argumentation is not your forte. I doubt that was what you intended; nevertheless . . . *sigh*
Mr Gonk – “By all means, argue them, but expect your arguments to be opposed.”
What makes you suggest I thought my proposals wouldn’t be opposed? I know how passionate people get when they see a source of moola (no matter how immoral) threatened.
Don’t forget – ending slavery, apartheid, segregation, discrimination against women and gays were all opposed.
Interesting about changes of attitude. In 1600 (when this concept was introduced) the church was burning people at the stake (Bruno was in 1600 – and they haven’t yet apologised for that one!).
You are damn right attitudes have changed. And the current behaviour of some sections of the church is accelerating that change.
Mr Gonk – its a human rights issue because it conflicts with the essence of our human rights legislation which opposes discrimination on the basis of religion or belief. Privilege is discrimination.
“No, I am not wanting the law changed to my point of view (at least specifically).
I am just wanting an anachronistic, archaic (goes back to 1600) privilege removed.”
So is it your point of view it’s an “anachronistic, archaic privilege”, or not? Do you want the law changed to reflect that point of view or not?
Ken, believe it or not, but some people who try to clarity what you’re saying are simply doing just that – accusing them of this and that isn’t debating in good faith.
Scrubone – you aren’t after clarity. Far from it. You want to confuse the issue.
Should an anachronistic, ancient law providing privileges to one section of the community and conflicting with the essence of our human rights legislation opposing discrimination on the basis of religion or belief continue or not.
I say not.
I think you want to say yes, but haven’t a good argument. So you attempt to cloud and confuse instead.
Churches (as noted in quoted law) don’t pay land rates. However, they *do* pay water and other service charges.
They don’t pay tax of profits, because they’re not making any – there are no payouts to shareholders, only costs.
There are churches which have large funds, but they tend to be the well-established sort who also have large charity works (Presbyterian Support in Otago is apparently far larger than most people realise ).
So you’re left with a few thousand of rates on a church building. Buildings which are frequently used for other community functions at minimal cost. If that exemption was removed, it wouldn’t be hard to avoid it (for example) by moving the land into a charitable trust, and charge the church rent to use it’s own building.
It’s a non-issue as I see it. Changing it isn’t going to gather any revenue, and would destroy a lot of good will.
You may see it as anachronistic, privilege or whatever. That’s your view, and you want the law changed to reflect your view. Many in society, including myself would disagree with you, since we do not see religious activities as profit making, and see them as generally good for society.
I would support atheist organisations being able to use the religious provision, as they are promoting a religious position.
Ken – You may, of course, continue to assert that I am confused. I in turn can suggest that you don’t realise what you’re saying.
One of us has defended one of these claims. 🙂
Ken
The issue of age of laws has been dealt with. Laws against murder for example are very ancient.
The issue of Bruno is a red herring, lots of things happened in the 16th century some good some bad ( but technically you are actually mistaken that the Church burnt Bruno at the stake. The Inquisition actually had no authority under canon law to kill anyone that was a decision for the civil government. ) the fact that you can find one bad thing that happened in the 16th century does not mean that any law from that period is unjust.
Finally you mention Privilege, which has been dealt with repeatedly, perhaps you can point out what rights and privileges, the current law grants to Christians that are not granted to anyone else.
As I have pointed out, non Christian religions also get tax exempt status for worship and prostelysation under the current law. And secular organizations can also get it under the current law. True they might do so under different sections, but that does not show they do not get the relevant privilege.
So apart from making sweeping generalizations to the effect that Christians fiddle with kids etc, or that I am really motivated by money etc. what privilege does the current law grant to Christians that are not also granted to anyone else?
Matt, I think Ken’s statements are pretty clear, and I would explain them, but as you can see, he’s just told me to stop trying to state his position.
It’s pretty clear that he’s upset anyone is trying to understand his position – which must be a first for debate anywhere!
[…] Glenn Peoples tries to cut to the chase at M and M. […]
Christ, you guys are like a pack of barking dogs – and making just about as much sense. I guess the problem is denial.
However, here’s a little parable to demonstrate how you come across. Fictional, but actually based on historical facts and attitudes.
During the ’80s as the process of transition was occurring in the Soviet Union there were intense discussions on the role of the CPSU, it’s history, and it’s future role in a pluralist multi-party system
Many citizens were angry about the priviliges accorded communists and the CPSU.
Party property was always on the most desirable sites. On tops of hills. Etc. And the party was exempt from the property taxes other organisations paid.
The Party had legal rights to positions on company boards. This was tied into provisions of the Breshnev constitution which legalized these positions as part of the leading role of the working class – via it’s party.
The Party claimed for itself the political and moral leadersip of society and was able to promulgate this attiude via positions it had in the media.
But people protested. They claimed that Breshnev’s “advanced socialism” concept violated human rights provisions in the constitution. They claimed that the CPSU should have no more privileges than other organisations. They wanted the Party to keep it’s hands off the new political organisations currently forming.
They also demanded an open consideration of the country’s history. The crimes of the Stalin era should be openly acknowledged. And there should be open discussion of their causes, not only in the personality cult, but in the ideology and organisation of the CPSU itself.
Existing limitations on basic freedoms should be removed.
Of course the Party defended itself. Apologists argued that the leading role was an historic requirement revealed by the science of historical materialism as outlined by Marx and Lenin.
They argued that the Party was so obviously working in the interests of the people that it was natural it’s work should be subsidized by tax exemptions. After all Party members paid regular subscriptions, did volunteer work, provided important social services, won people over from a life of crime or profiteering. Membership was an honour and respected by most people.
Those horrible anti-communists and imperialist sympathisers were attempting to promote disharmony in society by misrepresenting the work of the CPSU.
Yes, the Stalin cult was an aberation, wrong decisions were made. But the death sentences, imprisonments, etc were carried out by the state and it’s judicial organisations. If there were faults in these procedures they were faults pf the state not the Party.
OK, they said some party officials lived in luxury and there were cases of corruption. But it was wrong to tar the whole party with that stereotype.
Anyway a lot of those crimes were not committed by the CPSU but by nationalist elements within the Party. Cosmopolitans, even Jews.
And you know what. Those apologists lost out on the end. The CPSU lost it’s leading role and the Russian Communist Party ended up as just another political party without special priviliges. Human rights and the people won in the end.
But, you know, it wasn’t that simple. It was not the Party vs the people. The struggle took place within the CPSU itself.
People like Gorbachov and Sherevnadze played a huge role in ending the priviliges of the CPSU and developing a more democratic pluralist society.
I think there are strong parellels with our little situation here. I am sure there are many religious people who recognise the religion privileges in the taxation and land rating acts conflict with human rights. I think they are able to break out of the straightjacket of dogma and financial interests to recognise that this is a moral issue and morally they should stand with their fellow countrymen and women – irrespective of differences in ideology, religion or belief.
Sent from my iPod
So Ken, you attack people with mere insults, type out a ridiculously long post with no good parallels, and then finish off with a question begging description of religious charities as having “privileges.”
Your free-flowing ramble was an example that could be used to attack ANY corrup charity, religious or otherwise.
Talk about… what was it? Ah yes, jelly wrestling. Nobody has a privilege here, Ken. If it meets the description of providing benefit to the community then it qualifies. Simple.
I’m not going to cry and moan if a charity that exists for educational purposes is not granted status as a charity that exists for poverty relief (is this privilege?). I’m not going to get upset if a charity that exists as a religious charity fails to gain the status of an education providing charity (is this privilege?). But for some reason you’re making a fuss that other kinds of charity can’t resgister as religious charities.
It’s not privilege. You just cannot bring yourself to see that this is all about Ken’s private beliefs about what should and should not count as a charity, and Ken’s desire for the government to adopt that private belief as public policy.
It’s ironic when the atheist is the one fighting against separation of church and state!
Looks like the topic is almost burned out (indeed Scrubone has closed off discussion at his blog – at the very point when I thought we were coming to an agreement).
However, I’ll put the proposition I put to Scrubone here as a solution to reconciling different interests:
The government should be asked to amend the taxation law to remove a religion privilege (perceived or real) by either:
1: Removing the advancement of religion as one of the sectors the application could be made under.
Or
2: Amend the “advancement of religion” to instead state “advancement of life stance” or “advancement of religious or other beliefs and life stance”
or something to that effect.
Now Scruboine indicated he was in agreement (I think with option 2. I am happy with either.
Glenn was ?? (I thought he was opposed and then he told me I shouldn’t speak for him – come on Glenn – its a simple proposition. You need only say yes or no and that’s the end of it).
So Matt – What about you? Would you support either of these options?
And Ropata and Bethyada. You have both said a lot. Would you support either of these options?
Ken, I do support the notion of separation of church and state. But not to the extent of removing churches charitable status and removing religion from the public domain. It’s already a social faux pas in NZ to take religion seriously, but I don’t think we’re at the point of suppressing religious expression (yet)
But Ropata – the question is would you support any of the suggested options.
Can you give a yes or no answer?
We are not talking about abstract concepts – just the wording of legislation.
ROPATA:
Your statement basically says ” I do support the notion of separation of church and state. But not to the extent of separating the church and the state.”
Why not just bite the bullet and say you believe that the church should not be completely separate from the state? This is clearly what you believe, but you seem embarrassed to admit it. Own your beliefs!
Ken, no I would not support either of your options. Status quo seems fair to me.
Max, this may come as a surprise but religious people are taxpaying citizens just like you and have every right to participate in democracy, either individually or through organisations such as churches.
Church/state separation is a useful concept intended to avoid conflict, but certain church-averse reactionaries take that as their marching orders to get rid of religion altogether, which is probably not a practical or useful social goal.
Thanks Ropata.
Now Matt and Bethyafa (and perhaps Glenn) are you prepared to accept either of the two amendments?
“Max, this may come as a surprise but religious people are taxpaying citizens just like you and have every right to participate in democracy, either individually or through organisations such as churches. ”
Huh??? What??? Huh??? Why do you persist in making up random stuff and attributing it to people???
Ken, if you read my first comment on this post you will get your answer.
Just trying to follow your fine example Max.
Ken, I’m not sure why you’re asking again, but the fact remains that your proposed amendment is entirely pointless.Life stances are already included in the legislation because those examples listed are only examples, and the act specifically states that it includes all other matters beneficial to society.
If we approach the legislation in the way that you want to, then we will need to include thousands of examples in the law itself, to make sure that nothing is unfairly left out. For obvious reasons this is a seriously undesirable approach for lawmakers to take. This is why so many pieces of legislation, such as this one, are intentionally general in scope so that there’s no need to try to think of every possible example.
I don’t support pointless law changes and neither should you.
OK Bethyada. From your previous comment can I conclude that you would accept proposition 2 which makes clear that non-supernatural beliefs are included (“advancement of region and other beliefs and/or life stance”)?
I really want a yes/no answer becuase otherwise I get accused of putting words into your mouth. Is it a YES for you?
Glenn, I must assume you are opposed to both options. Your current argument is dishonest because it just repeats a previous one that has been adequately answered.
These four provisions under the charities act are separate sectors and cover different things. The commission and many other documents list them separately and, for example, advise applicants on how they would satisfy the different requirement. There may be examples WITHIN the categories to do this but there are separate categories.
Your jelly wrestling here is irrelevant because it won’t be you working for this change. Other people will be promoting it and I am sure you will be opposing it.
Really I have no more interest in your comments.The discussion has really ended.
Matt – what about you?
Do you feel you could support either of these two options if this came to consideration in parliament?
“Just trying to follow your fine example Max.”
You are just doing it again. If you actually read what I said you would know that I believe in a God as much as you do… so don’t give me this hating God, and wanting to destroy religion nonsense.
It is a valuable skill to be able to see which of your political beliefs are one’s which your faith necessitates, and which are just historical happenstance. This example, where we happen to have a particular political setup which unfairly advantages a particular group has nothing to do with whether there is a God or not, or with the rest of your belief system.
My disagreement with you is political in nature – nothing do do with my attitude to religion or God. A distinction it would do you well to bear in mind perhaps?
And to my fellow believers… why are you so reluctant to answer a Yes/No question? Why not be proud of your stance whatever it is. For myself: Yes.
Max, thanks for answering the question.
Could you clarify, do you prefer option 1 or 2?
Ken: I would be happy with either – but my preference would be for 2. The line between “religion” and “life stance” is a pretty fuzzy one in any case…
But I have not thought through all of the practical consequences of adopting this so I could well change my mind if something I have not thought of is pointed out to me.
Ken
I am partially with Glenn and partially with Bethyada. I agree with Glenn and Ropata that there is no unfair priveledge being conferred on Christians by the current law.
That said I do think that the way the word religion is currently interpreted by the relevant authorities is mistaken. There are many pantheistic religions for example that worship nature. Seeing they see nature as divine they do not worship a supernatural being. Yet they are clearly religions. So the definition of religion, currently being used seems to me to be mistaken.
I also agree with Max that the line distinguishing religion from “comprehensive views” is rather fuzzy. Earlier I cited a U S Supreme Court case (US vs Seeger) which held that certain secular moral systems which function in the life of an atheist the way belief in God functions in the life of a believer should be considered to be religious according to the law regarding conscientious objection, I agreed with that decision. I am also familiar with the work of some liberal thinkers such as Rawls who have argued that various secular comprehensive perspectives function on par with religions. There is also the scholars such as Tillich, Doyweerd and others who define religion broadly such as in terms of ultimate concern or a belief in an ultimate reality of some sort etc. So I am sympathetic to amending the definition of religion to include various secular views like Humanism. Hence, I would be prepared to look at something like option 2. I would however rather keep the category religion as stated in the law but change the definition of this term, to something along the lines of the Seeger decision
Thanks Matt.
Seems to me that any debate on changing the legislation would probably be most profitable around option 2.
I think we have to remember that whatever our own interpretation is of the situation our society is pluralistic and final solutions should be inclusive. I think “advancement of religion and other beliefs” would satisfy that.
However, I suspect there will be people who can’t stomach subsidizing non-religious beliefs, or who realize when put this way that the area of subdidising advancement of beliefs in general really isn’t charity.
Thereight be pressure in the snd to abandon beliefs and go for option 1. This would then lead to churches etc registering under education as the humanists do.
I am aware that there is a move in Australia to tackle this problem. Their situation is very similar yo our so it could come here too.
The other factor is now that there is a Charities Commission, a register and possibly better financial reporting there may be moves to tidy up our situation. This could mean tighter control on the various categories.
That in itself may cause public scrutiny and discussion of these issues and possible amendments to the Act.
I’m told that Buddhists in general tend to be pantheistic, but I’m pretty sure that they would be considered a religion.
But I think the clear consensus in this comments thread – with the exception of one person – is that there actually isn’t a problem with the legislation itself.
And of course Ken – whether the advancement of beliefs is charitable or not depends in large part on the truth value of those beliefs, which is why we take a stance on religion (or any belief set) by declaring that there’s no community benefit involved.
“And of course Ken – whether the advancement of beliefs is charitable or not depends in large part on the truth value of those
beliefs”
– this does not seem right. Many different beliefs, even contradictory ones could potentially all be beneficial to the people who hold them. I would need some convincing that only true beliefs are beneficial.
Surely no- one in this day and age wants the government to make decisions and have a view on the truth of claims made by a belief.
That implies only the approved religion or belief qualifies. That is a theocracy.
Strangely enough , even in the USSR this wasn’t done. While no other political parties were allowed monastries snd theological colleges were.
Ken: surely governments do this all the time when it comes to ethical beliefs.
Sure, Max. Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, etc. But they are theocracies and people of other beliefs take a risk talking about them.
In democracies like ours governments don’t line up with specific religous/belief claims. The ruling from the Judge in the UK over the dismissal of the Christian counseller who wouldn’t counsel homesexuals is a case illustrating that.
Our human rights legislation also shows it. It’s just a few areas where anachronisms from the past still survive – charity status and ceremonial things.
Ken: I said ETHICAL beliefs – which clearly our government does legislate upon constantly.
Sure, Max, but these exist separate from any religious or ideological belief. As the Judge says the state has to apply reason, logic and evidence in making these decisions and cannot simply adopt the subjective beliefs of one section of their population.
Nominally… but lets face it they do!
I dreamed a dream, blue, chess player and camrun. The reasons why I don’t email you anymore.
So don’t ask with a docile question mark (??) to why I don’t email you anymore.
If you can’t behave yourself then I refuse to give you my love.
Anyway you are losing your appeal (the little that you did have)- the other reason why I don’t write.
It has always seemed to me to be hypocritical for Churches to say that the government or local authority should be doing more to tackle poverty, when they are contributing virtually nothing. If they put their hand in their pocket and contributed to council rates, local authorities would be better able to provide more playgrounds for children or social centres for the elderly.
James
I find your suggestion that the churches contribute virtually nothing to alleviate poverty to be pretty obviously false. In fact I could show you some studies which suggest in fact members of religious organizations ( particularly conservative ones) give disproportionately more to the poor than the rest. And if you are really going to suggest that groups like the salvation army contribute nothing I suggest you are simply misinformed.
It is not a matter of whether taxing churches would produce sufficient taxation but the premise that they should not be taxed like any other business that is the flaw of human rationale, thereby, contributing to the presumption and premise that religion is somehow exempt from other human context as to deserve tax preference. History of humanity shows that it is a relatively recent phenomena – for any reliigion – and that perpetuating the myth by no taxation – allows ignorance of philosophy to grow that benefits only certain persons and groups rather than the entire population of the world, or of any given nation. Religious conflict depends upon myth that no one can prove as true or false, and many would capitalize upon that ignorance of humanity to make money and live off of the ignorance of humans.
Pat your comment assumes churches are “money making ventures” and not like a charity or educational trust. I think that’s only true if you accept certain caricatures of churches.
The winner of this years “Project Reason”, entitled “The New Tithe” shows just how money orientated some religious organisations can be.
I realise that this may not apply to all, but the issue of churches being exempt from tax could cause some people more interested in creating money from peoples genuine belief, to be encouraged to do this.
The clip relates to US based organisations, but I don’t believe it would be unfair to say that examples such as the “Destiny Church” here in NZ, really do make you wonder what really motivates Brian Tamaki, a genuine belief in god, or a genuine desire to make money.
Regardless of personal beliefs, people can see this, surely?
Sorry, forgot the link:
http://www.project-reason.org/contests/2011_video_contest/#entries
Enjoy! And while you’re there, take a look at some of the others.