Separation of Church and State...too much, too little, or just right? (3 Viewers)

[HumanDichotomy]

Well... as long as the church's influence on the state does not lead to a minority being oppressed or discriminated against or having their liberty infringed upon then I'm all for it.

But off course, we all know that's not the case. Amiright boys and girls?

Agreed with this. I mean, although we're secular in name, in practice, religious groups still have far too much influence in some areas.

 

[Name_Taken]

Yes people can do what they want but they shouldn't be able to do what they want in a government funded way, which is what tax exemption is. If they could then anyone with any set of beliefs and followers should be able to get government funding. If you argue against one religion in this instance then you are arguing against them all, unless you want to be hypocritical.

I wasn't arguing against one religion or another. I think they should all get funding, however obviously in a manner proportionate to their size and level of involvement in community affairs.

For you to suggest that Churches etc shouldn't be tax free I think is silly because the money they generate is simply funnelled directly back into the community. They're not-for-profit organisations (like charaties) and so taxing them is simply taking away from the community and preventing them to help as many people as they should be able to.

Churchs act for the good of the community, they deserve funding in the same way that other various community organisations do, like schools, scout clubs, sporting clubs, libraries etc.

I'd prefer to fund a Mosque or religious group which I am not affiliated with at all to help those in need and bring happiness to people than I would to fund some athlete to run around a track in the hope of winning a medal at the next Olympics games.

 

[annabackwards]

I think if we want to progress, we will need more separation from their conservative and quite frankly backwards ideals. I'd say pretty unlikely to get full separation.

Also as Anon said, fuck Tony Abbott.

+Infinity.

Stuff tax exemption for religions and the discrimination of homosexuals etc etc etc.

Religious notions should not be forcefully imposed onto others.

 

[BlackDragon]

For you to suggest that Churches etc shouldn't be tax free I think is silly because the money they generate is simply funnelled directly back into the community. They're not-for-profit organisations (like charaties) and so taxing them is simply taking away from the community and preventing them to help as many people as they should be able to.

Yes but they do more than that, they fund specific religous worship as well. If it were all about helping the community then the money should go straight to secular organisations or charities that are made to help the community. If all the money shouldn't go straight to these services then it must be something to do with the fact that they are religious. People should be able to fund their beliefs without the help of the government, people who don't believe in god who help out the community don't get their beliefs funded.

 

[Name_Taken]

Agreed with this. I mean, although we're secular in name, in practice, religious groups still have far too much influence in some areas.

Most Australians are religious.

Australians vote in a disproportionate percentage of religious politicians than the corresponding percentage of religious people in the population (which is still like 65%).

One could say its merely democracy at work. Just because Australia is secular, that doesn't mean that religion has no place in public policy, especially when the majority of the population subscribe to various religious views.

 

[Name_Taken]

Yes but they do more than that, they fund specific religous worship as well. If it were all about helping the community then the money should go straight to secular organisations or charities that are made to help the community. If the money shouldn't go straight to these services then it must be something to do with the fact that they are religious. People should be able to fund their beliefs without the help of the government, people who don't believe in god who help out the community don't get their beliefs funded.

I never said money should just be thrown at any group that declares itself "religious" at the expense of non-religious community organisations that perform similar roles. If both are beneficial to the community, both merit support.

I just said that its undeniable that Churches play a positive role in supporting the community, whether it be running youth and homeless hostels, retirement homes, running charity drives etc that they should recieve due government funding to help them in their efforts.

Now ofc once they get the money, they will be welcome to spend it on fixing the Chruch building or expanding their facilities if need be (the Church is a community building afterall and is open to all, it would be like spending money fixing a library building), however you are very much mistaken if you think this is like the main use of their resources. Churches have always played a charitable role in Australian society.

And religious organisations are not strictly restricted to actual Churches, organisations like the Salvation Army certinely merit government support IMO.

 

[BlackDragon]

I never said money should just be thrown at any group that declares itself "religious" at the expense of non-religious community organisations that perform similar roles. If both are beneficial to the community, both merit support.

I didn't say you said that. All I said was that you are saying that religious organisations and churches deserve funding because they help the community. I then said why don't just we give all the money to groups that are only focused on helping the community. If you do not think this should happen then there is something about the beliefs that you think should be funded; Otherwise there is no reason to give it to these people who don't spend all the money on helping people, but also on sharing their beliefs. If it is about helping the community then we should give it to organisations that ONLY help the community. We shouldn't be funding people's beliefs.

 

[Graney]

Get over the stigma that the Church is simply a backward institution that just wants to control every aspect of your life rofls.

Churches and other religious groups are all important parts of the community and as such merit government funding, along the same lines of sports clubs and various community organisations.

Sporting clubs and many of those other community organisations receiving funding are total bullshit. If people want to play sport or go to the RSL, they should be willing to pay for it out of their own pocket, why should other taxpayers be forced to fork out for such luxuries. If people want to worship at a church, they should be willing to pay for it. If they're not willing to pay for the construction of a church, clearly it wasn't worth that much to the community.

There's a case to be made for government contributing specifically to charitable works, and that alone, but not a dollar should go astray on anything that isn't directly providing relief for people in need. They should have to compete with secular charities and organisations to prove they are providing bang for every buck in measurable objective outcomes, in order to obtain any funding. The current paradigm allows for direct funding of worship and activities solely aimed at recruitment for churches.

 

[SylviaB]

government spending on any "community" type things are total bullshit


heck, government spending on everything except defence and only a few other things is generally stupid

 

[BlackDragon]

Sporting clubs and many of those other community organisations receiving funding are total bullshit. If people want to play sport or go to the RSL, they should be willing to pay for it out of their own pocket, why should other taxpayers be forced to fork out for such luxuries. If people want to worship at a church, they should be willing to pay for it. If they're not willing to pay for the construction of a church, clearly it wasn't worth that much to the community.

There's a case to be made for government contributing specifically to charitable works, and that alone, but not a dollar should go astray on anything that isn't directly providing relief for people in need. They should have to compete with secular charities and organisations to prove they are providing bang for every buck in measurable objective outcomes, in order to obtain any funding. The current paradigm allows for direct funding of worship and activities solely aimed at recruitment for churches.

Yes, not a dollar should go astray, otherwise it is about something else. And we shouldn't be funding peoples' beliefs.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

Sporting clubs and many of those other community organisations receiving funding are total bullshit. If people want to play sport or go to the RSL, they should be willing to pay for it out of their own pocket, why should other taxpayers be forced to fork out for such luxuries. If people want to worship at a church, they should be willing to pay for it. If they're not willing to pay for the construction of a church, clearly it wasn't worth that much to the community.
.

+1
sport is just so unescessary and expensive.

 

[Graney]

heck, government spending on everything except defence and only a few other things is generally stupid

defense is the worst of all.

 

[Lukybear]

I didn't say you said that. All I said was that you are saying that religious organisations and churches deserve funding because they help the community. I then said why don't just we give all the money to groups that are only focused on helping the community. If you do not think this should happen then there is something about the beliefs that you think should be funded; Otherwise there is no reason to give it to these people who don't spend all the money on helping people, but also on sharing their beliefs. If it is about helping the community then we should give it to organisations that ONLY help the community. We shouldn't be funding people's beliefs.

We do know what your views on religion are. But to some people, spirituality enhances once life. It offers escape, optimism, truth to lives all across the nation. And by allowing some spark of light, into their lives it does enhance the community.

More solidly speaking, it also transforms one's self, enhancing their civil duties. It not about the church being a redudant charity, but about the creation of new servants of society, as they believe, they are serving the Lord, from previous, not commonly charitable people.

Now, I cant recognise another organisation that transforms the soul, that allow one to live, to become alive. If you havent experience the true joy of salvation, dont ruin it for others.

 

[Name_Taken]

I then said why don't just we give all the money to groups that are only focused on helping the community. If you do not think this should happen then there is something about the beliefs that you think should be funded; Otherwise there is no reason to give it to these people who don't spend all the money on helping people, but also on sharing their beliefs. If it is about helping the community then we should give it to organisations that ONLY help the community. We shouldn't be funding people's beliefs.

Lol, 65% of Australians (2004 census) subscribed to a religious belief. On this basis alone the government has an obligation to spend tax dollars on the upkeep of religious insitutions and their facilities, as it does to maintain public parks and libraries. It just so happens that in addition to this, most religious organisations play very important roles in their communities eg. charity work etc. and thus merit public support regardless.

As well as this, many religiously-based organisations have become a very important part of Australian culture over time, one of the best examples of this being the Salvation Army. You would hardly discriminate against the Salvation Army and fund other similar organisations deliberately on the basis that the Salvos are Christian, simply because you are not Christian and don't believe in what they do.

 

[vikraman]

I wasn't arguing against one religion or another. I think they should all get funding, however obviously in a manner proportionate to their size and level of involvement in community affairs.

For you to suggest that Churches etc shouldn't be tax free I think is silly because the money they generate is simply funnelled directly back into the community. They're not-for-profit organisations (like charaties) and so taxing them is simply taking away from the community and preventing them to help as many people as they should be able to.

Churchs act for the good of the community, they deserve funding in the same way that other various community organisations do, like schools, scout clubs, sporting clubs, libraries etc.

I'd prefer to fund a Mosque or religious group which I am not affiliated with at all to help those in need and bring happiness to people than I would to fund some athlete to run around a track in the hope of winning a medal at the next Olympics games.

The catholic church uses this tax-exempt status to fund the creation of a living hell in Africa. It's not their activities in developed countries that we question, it's their activities in third world countries such as assisting in the creation of a law in Uganda that bans homosexuality and pushing for the banning of abortions and the sale of condoms (quite successfully I might add) in many sub-Saharan Africa countries causing massive overpopulation and resource stress on these countries. The tax-exempt status here helps kill people in Africa. Congratulations

And, FUCK TONY ABBOTT

 

[BlackDragon]

We do know what your views on religion are. But to some people, spirituality enhances once life. It offers escape, optimism, truth to lives all across the nation. And by allowing some spark of light, into their lives it does enhance the community.

More solidly speaking, it also transforms one's self, enhancing their civil duties. It not about the church being a redudant charity, but about the creation of new servants of society, as they believe, they are serving the Lord, from previous, not commonly charitable people.

Now, I cant recognise another organisation that transforms the soul, that allow one to live, to become alive. If you havent experience the true joy of salvation, dont ruin it for others.

People should be able to do these things by themselves. It is ultimately just funding beliefs, and these beliefs may greatly help those that believe, but to others they mean nothing. Other people have different beliefs and are inspired by those. Not to mention the fact that if we fund religions then we are also funding the many bad views that religions put forth. Just let people be apart of whatever belief and ritual system they want, without government help.

 

[Graney]

We do know what your views on religion are. But to some people, spirituality enhances once life. It offers escape, optimism, truth to lives all across the nation. And by allowing some spark of light, into their lives it does enhance the community.

We all know what your views on video games are. But to some people, playing Playstation 3 enhances their lives. It offers escape, optimism, and Gran Turismo 5 to lives all across the nation. By allowing COD:Modern warfare into their lives it does enhance the community.

Replace 'spirituality' in your rant with... absolutely anything, and you've got a retarded justification for publicly funding all sorts of shit.

 

[BlackDragon]

Lol, 65% of Australians (2004 census) subscribed to a religious belief. On this basis alone the government has an obligation to spend tax dollars on the upkeep of religious insitutions and their facilities, as it does to maintain public parks and libraries. It just so happens that in addition to this, most religious organisations play very important roles in their communities eg. charity work etc. and thus merit public support regardless.

As well as this, many religiously-based organisations have become a very important part of Australian culture over time, one of the best examples of this being the Salvation Army. You would hardly discriminate against the Salvation Army and fund other similar organisations deliberately on the basis that the Salvos are Christian, simply because you are not Christian and don't believe in what they do.

You are arguing against yourself because if so many people do it themselves and it is so important to many people then they should have no trouble funding it themselves. People who do not believe, the aparrent 35%, should not fund the others' belief system.

 

[Name_Taken]

Lol my gosh you guys are so darn tight.

Whatever happened to caring for others? People on this forum tell me I'm an insensitive prick because I oppose gay marriage and tell me to "love thy neighbour" as my religion dictates.

What about some of you? Society can't work unless there is a degree of sacrifice on the part of the individual to support the whole. Money isn't everything in life, get your priorities right.

 

[Lukybear]

Sporting clubs and many of those other community organisations receiving funding are total bullshit. If people want to play sport or go to the RSL, they should be willing to pay for it out of their own pocket, why should other taxpayers be forced to fork out for such luxuries. If people want to worship at a church, they should be willing to pay for it. If they're not willing to pay for the construction of a church, clearly it wasn't worth that much to the community.

There's a case to be made for government contributing specifically to charitable works, and that alone, but not a dollar should go astray on anything that isn't directly providing relief for people in need. They should have to compete with secular charities and organisations to prove they are providing bang for every buck in measurable objective outcomes, in order to obtain any funding. The current paradigm allows for direct funding of worship and activities solely aimed at recruitment for churches.

You do forget, that the people who go to church pay taxes as well. That is dangerous, Labour thinking.

Firstly, I do to a certain degree agree with you that these "sporting" clubs, if wealthy enough do not deserve payment. Certainly some wealthy people, take advantage of the goverment and become far too greedy.

That being said, we need to recognise that all people pay taxes, not just you. It could be said, that the people who are at sporting clubs pay more taxes then you, and in actual fact, you (presumably your in uni and is assited by goverment) is leeching off these hardworking people, sweat and break their backs to earn a living.

Secondly, the Church, certainly is somewhat supported by the goverment. Although during this year, and perhaps the next, the support will be very minimal, due to the financial crisis, but there is certainly suport. However, the majority of funding still comes from the Charitable people who attend Church.