Aussie Senate probe into tax-free ‘religious’ frauds
Former members of the Church of Scientology today will tell of the need for charities and religious groups to pass a public benefit test to receive a tax-free status.
Independent Senator Nick Xenophon has introduced a bill to Parliament which he says would ensure organisations which are not paying tax are of benefit to Australians.
He says the Senate inquiry will hear evidence for and against the proposed test, like one which applies in the UK.
“It’s been very successful and it’s important that we look at adopting such a test here in Australia,” he said.
“Genuine religions, genuine charities have nothing to fear from this.
Eh? Hold the phone there Nick! What is a ‘genuine’ religion? None of them are. Not one of them can show a scrap of a smidgeon of a smell of a hint of evidence for their god(s). They are ALL false.
“This is about ensuring a level of scrutiny and accountability that doesn’t exist in the system that we have now.”
| Print article | This entry was posted by Michael Kingsford Gray on June 29, 2010 at 3:49 pm, and is filed under Activism, Society. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed. |











about 1 year ago
The inquiry isn’t to demonstrate the evidence for their god(s). If it was, all religions would fail. Nor to determine the truth of their beliefs or doctrines – as these generally fall into one of two categories: unprovable or false.
Examples: Beliefs concerning the nature of their god(s) – unprovable. Doctrine of Adam and Eve – false. 6000-year-old earth – false. Denial of evolution – false.
Instead the inquiry limits itself to “public benefit”. Does the religion/church in some way benefit the public, e.g. by charitable works, homeless shelters and so on. An example of funds being received which weren’t put to public benefit would be Scientology where Australian revenue is channeled to the USA.
about 1 year ago
The trouble with this stems back to Queen Elizabeth I, who declared, by fiat, in her so-called ‘Heads of Charity’ that religious indoctrination is an automatic charity, irrespective of whether or not they do any real charitable works.
Australia inherited this system.
But when Nick implied that religions could be divided into ‘genuine’ and ‘non-genuine’, I wonder on what possible basis that distinction might be made? (As it has to be under QE1’s Heads of Charity laws.)
about 1 year ago
It isn’t necessary to specify on the basis of genuine or non-genuine. The tax-free concession could be made _only_ to those monies which are spent for public benefit, and churches could be taxed on all other monies.
Of course this would require them to start accounting for their finances – a practice which I am sure is novel to most. I will posit that the tax-free concession means that churches have loose accountability for their finances – how much comes in and where it goes out – and if this is true, I further expect that fraud is rampant among the clergy. I must check out just how carefully churches are required to keep track of their money.
about 1 year ago
It’s easy to show that religions do not benefit a society. I await this bill with interest….