Is it time to stop organisational exemptions to the law on religious grounds?

[Jerry_Atrick]

I just read this article: Catholic Inc: What the Church is really worth and, although the defenders of the faith will call it a witch hunt and point out all of the social programs the catholic chirch provides (of which many have to be applauded), it rasises the question of whether or not any church or recognised religious group shouod be exempt from the general laws of the land...

 

At a personal level, it is sort of understandable - Sikhs, for example, are exempt from wearing helments (in the UK). Jews can take days off withut fear of losing their jobs on their important religious holidays. I think that is fine. But why do we allow a church to exempt itself from being required to comply with tax, health and safety, discrimination and other laws of the land? I have long thought this outrageous and as this article points out - wher the church can evade answering questions to a paliamentary inquiry - the law of the land - is quite simply outrageous.

 

I don't aim this at the catholic church alone - I imagine all recognised religious institutions of all faiths are able to hide behind these exemptions. I have to admit, lately I have been questioning my spirituality (or aspirituality) and entertained the idea of belief - until I read the "good book" and thought what a load of bovine sludge. Even my children, who go to a chirstian school question the faith in the scientific evidence (note - we do not positively discourage them; we just do not positively encourage them either).

 

For my $0.02, this is what I think:

 

- Removal from all exemptions of discrimination - gender, sexual preference, beliefs, etc. So for example, if I am a non-jewish teacher and want to teach at a Jewish school, then unless someone is better than me applying, I should be able to - my religion should not matter as long as I respect it is a faith school and do not contradict it's faith teachings. Also, if I am a non-muslim pupil and I (or my parents) want me to go to a muslim school, then religion should not come into it unless I am disrespectful to the Muslim faith (I may have to accept learning Arabic, the quoran and praying). Before saying I wouldn't send my child to a muslim. jewish, anglican, catholic school. fair enough - that's your choice, but different people have different motivations and if the school receives state funding (as do all independent schools in Aus and a lot of state schools are religious aligned in the UK), there simply should be no discrimonation - period.

 

- All religious insititutions shoudl have to keep the financial accounts in toe and if above the required thresholds, have independent auditors verify them. This should be done to the standard at least requierd by charities. I, personally think religions should be treated as corporates and subject to taxation , but (at least in the UK) as charities are not subject to corp tax (non profit organisations that somehow too often make profits and have execs with big salaries), then I can concede the lack of taxation. The point is, they have to be fully transparent about their finances so they can be scrutinised.

 

- All religious institutions should be able to be done for contempt of court/parliament (which is a court, at the end of the day). Not providing information to a parliamentary inquiry )and having no ramification) is tanatamount to being above the law - and only one institution is (technically) above the law - the monarch - Lizzy (I believe, even in Aus sd she is Australia's monarch as well - so not even the GG is above the law). How come, because someone believes in a hypothesis, they are above the law? Ridiculous.

 

- Finally, they should not be able to influence the courts assessment of damages in tort (or other areas of the law). I am siure the farmers, Berrigan, etc. could ill afford the damages awarded against them - so why should any institution (religious or otherwise) get special treatment?Yes, they do social programs - but that is discretionary for thenm. Counciles, governments, state health, etc. they are mandated by law to provide social programs yet they don't get any of the slack cut to them that churches seem to. If you stuff up bad, expect to pay. If you can't, the baillifs should move in.. Simples. Even charitiis are in that boat.

 

There ya go.. Jerry's recipe for true societal equality at the institutional level (well almost)...

 

 

[spacesailor]

Multinationals exempt paying their fair share of tax..

 

Poor people putting a donation on the pious plate, to be taxed ontop of the income tax payed,

 

must be a reason you need the poor to help you, instead of helping the unfortunate ones.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[facthunter]

People get taken to court and won't recognise the Judge or the Court's Authority. As far as I'm concerned that means you forfeit the right to live in THAT society if you won't accept it's Laws.. Or do you just make up your own rules or use the ones that apply somewhere else? Nev

 

 

[Bruce]

It's using taxpayers money to fund religious schools that I find obscene.

 

If they study the Koran at a religious school, a small percentage will take it all seriously and need to get out there and kill infidels. This is how the probabilities of a population work, and their parents may well be nice and moderate people.

 

That this indoctrination is done with government support makes me angry.

 

 

[facthunter]

What people don't understand is if you fund one you fund all comers. Howard accepted scientology as eligible. those who see "atheist" as another religion must be ready to reconsider? Nev

 

 

[Bruce]

The Catholics got there first, and they had a fairly good argument that they shouldn't have to pay tax for state schools and then pay to run their own system.

 

I actually like the idea of discretionary tax, there is a long list of things I don't want to support. The monarchy is just one of the things on that list.

 

But the system could not operate if we could do this, so you have to reject the notion.

 

 

[facthunter]

We know why they want to get at them when they are young and impressionable. This fact has even come up in their own internal discussions, and memo's. The Moslem madrassa's work the same way.. Democracy is not simply majority rule. 50% plus one and you take the lot, could mean the losers lose their heads. There are rules and protocols as part of the formula. there is already a discretionary tax. IF you have plenty of money, paying tax is at your discretion. Nev

 

 

[spacesailor]

ONE Exeption I liked, Many years ago.

 

" conscientious objector"

 

I objected as I had applied for the airforce and navy, but was turned down.

 

Then a month or two later was drafted into the army, so I said no & the Magistrate agreed, That I wasn't needed.

 

If I had been sent away I wouldent have met my wife all those years ago.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Bruce]

There was a story at the time about a conscientious objector who answered every question with a quote from the bible.

 

The magistrate praised him and so did the reporters and he won his case. This was the 1960's.

 

The objector was of course right in that christianity is totally incompatible with any sort of military. The religion was chosen by Constantine after shopping for a religion with exactly that feature.

 

How the powers that be can doublethink around this issue is yet another proof to me that they only pretend to believe the religious stuff.

 

 

[facthunter]

Oh, Ye of little faith. Surely you know they are Of a pious nature and do good works because Dog knows every thought they have so why would they pretend if it's not the truth.? If God was talking to me I think I'd take a hell of a lot of notice because HE can zap you or send you to Hell, dead easy. God can do that because he's god.. I suppose there is just a minute possibility that they bear false witness just to make us think they are godly. Refer line above. They must therefore be very brave to refuse to heed the warning, and run the risk of getting found out., and zapped.. How's THAT for an explanation? Nev

 

 

[Bruce]

Nev, do you actually know anybody who seriously believes religious stuff?

 

If so, how do you know that they really believe and are not just pretending to in order to lord it over no-account people like us?

 

Not that their pretense is that shallow, they probably don't question themselves at all. But do they really turn the other cheek and stuff? No way.

 

So they fail the Bruce test of true belief.

 

On another thread I have tried unsuccessfully to unearth a creationist.

 

 

[facthunter]

Well Bruce, It would be nice to go to heaven (that would be cool) and not hell (which is not so cool because it's fire and brimstone) except from what I've seen around me the people in Hell would be more honest and more interesting, than the alternative in heaven who seem to just be intent on saving their miserable souls . Keep this to yourself Bruce Don't tell anyone . I used to be a god botherer and could quote all the usual stuff. and had all the guilt that's part of it. It's not easy to get it out of your head when you have had many years of indoctrination ..

 

Do I really know of any? They are out there Bruce, working against the right to die with dignity , Women's reproductive rights and the LGBT thing we just had a referendum on, right now. Most of America believes the world is 6300 years old. and some that the earth is FLAT.. I know of Airline Pilots who believe America never landed on the moon. Why? Because to leave the earth you must fly over Mecca and they didn't do that, so it didn't happen.. This is your Jumbo Captain speaking. God is great. ( god willing) Nev

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Well Bruce, It would be nice to go to heaven (that would be cool) and not hell (which is not so cool because it's fire and brimston) except from what I've seen around me the people in Hell would be more honest and more interesting, than the alternative in heaven who seem to just be intent on saving their miserable souls ...

Michael Leunig illustrated the issue thus:

 

[ATTACH]49362._xfImport[/ATTACH]

 

[Yenn]

I know some who truly believe in their religion. My father in law was one and a damn good bloke he was. Not really impressed with his daughters choice of lifemate, but he lived with it. Some of my friends believe and while I know they are intelligent and good people I do wonder what is in their heads that they can be so deluded..

 

 

[Bruce]

There was an American Indian tribe who got so converted that they turned the other cheek to their enemies.

 

This tribe is now extinct. However a true believer would say that they are much better off and in heaven these days.

 

What would your father-in law say to this Yenn?

 

 

[Bruce]

Darn it . The Royal wedding is on and I feel ill.

 

 

[facthunter]

Whatever it is they do. (pagentry) They do it well. Who does it better? Harry looks as if it's a big event for him.. They could be worse. It doesn't bother me. I don't even mind Charlie. The Poms can do what they like It's their patch. The Americans have a vote and look who they elected. from Raygun on ,. Obama didn't offend me but could have done more for the middle class.. Nev

 

 

[Yenn]

I really don't know what my father in law would say. He believed there is a Heaven and I suppose also hell, but he also believed in making the best of this world.

 

Maybe if he was correct all along I will get to ask him, but then again we may not end up in the same heaven

 

 

[spacesailor]

Or be better off in the warm place "down under".

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Marty_d]

Or be better off in the warm place "down under".spacesailor

I'm confused, are you saying Australia is "heaven" or "hell"?

 

 

[kgwilson]

I find most God botherers hypocritical in some way and it is quite easily seen. They seem to justfy whatever they do based on some part of their beliefs even when it is clearly incompatible with the laws of the land or the state or an organisation. I am constantly having to remind one of these that just because he believes something is the right thing to do he cannot do these things when he has no authority to do so. The authority in this case is defined by the constitution of an incorporated association with clearly defined responsibilities. He seems reasonably intelligent but has this inbuilt indoctrination (or is that brainwashing) that justifies his actions even though he has been made fully aware that these have violated the provisions of the constitution.

 

 

[spacesailor]

Like chopping the hand off a thief, or stoning a rapist.

 

They seem like a good way of curbing BAD sociopaths.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[robinsm]

YES

 

 

[Bruce]

Yep Space, cutting hands off thieves does seem to work. In those countries you feel very safe with respect to thieves. Gosh I hope they don't do it to kids though.

 

I don't know of any places that stone rapists . They are more likely to blame the woman than the rapists, that is if the woman is stupid enough to complain to the police.

 

AND there is this problem with the death penalty... it is irreversible if you have made a mistake.

 

 

[Marty_d]

Yep Space, cutting hands off thieves does seem to work. In those countries you feel very safe with respect to thieves. Gosh I hope they don't do it to kids though.I don't know of any places that stone rapists . They are more likely to blame the woman than the rapists, that is if the woman is stupid enough to complain to the police.

 

AND there is this problem with the death penalty... it is irreversible if you have made a mistake.

I think the whole hand-chopping-off thing is fairly irreversible if you make a mistake, too.

 

Plus if you want a thief to give up their thieving lifestyle and become a hardworking productive member of society, taking away one of their hands hardly seems helpful.