Defence of religious tax free status flawed

The various institutions such as schools, hospitals, relief-of-poverty institutions are considered at law to be charitable irrespective of whether they are run by religious or secular organisations. To fail to distinguish between the advancement of religion itself and these other institutional activities is misleading.

False analogy: Ms Moore argues that institutions like the University of Sydney and the Uniting Church are 'fundamentally distinct from [for-profit] corporations' and therefore should not pay tax. But Ms Moore is setting up a straw man here and not comparing like with like.

The issue is that the University of Sydney is a secular organization. The Uniting Church is a religious one. Australia is in principle a democracy not a theocracy.

There is supposed to be a constitutional separation of church and state. If the state funds the University of Sydney that is a secular activity. It the state funds a religious organization, in principle, that should be unconstitutional on the grounds of separation of church and state.

The fact that there is no effective constitutional separation in the constitutional monarchy that is Australia is little understood and rarely discussed in mainstream media, including by Ms Moore.

Selective use of detail: Ms Moore argues that religious organizations do pay tax 'where appropriate'. This includes some fringe benefits tax, payroll tax, land tax, rates stamp duty, local government charges. Yes, it is a moving feast as to what, when and why, some religiously based organizations pay these taxes. But again, she does not say which religious institutions pay these taxes and she completely omits the fact that religious organizations do not pay major taxes like income tax or capital gains tax. She also omits the direct grants church organisations get from government.

As for fringe benefits, she fails to mention the ATO's Interpretive Decision 2001/332 of 15 September 2001 which allowed a religious organization to pay a retired pastor $1,000 per week paid into a church credit card for his personal use on top of the free accommodation and free car use the pastor was already receiving because he was 'religious.'

Fear Factor: Ms Moore argues if government had to provide all the schools, hospitals, services, religious organizations provide society would 'go bankrupt'. This is a variation on the Omission and Misrepresentation argument. No one argues these organizations should be taxed, though funding of religious schools should certainly be considered to be unconstitutional as it is in the United States. Again, the failure to distinguish between the 'advancement of religion' itself, and other charitable activities.

Higher Purpose: Ms Moore next argues studies have shown church attendance has positive effects for mental health, physical health, longevity and social cohesion. Religion is a 'public benefit.' No it isn't. It would be understood as a private benefit if there was a true separation of church and state in Australia. Atheism is a private benefit as well, and like religion, its organization in Australia should not be tax-exempt. Government tax privilege for any belief compromises the idea of Australia as a secular nation i.e. neither for nor against religion or its alternatives.

Ms Moore concludes 'Churches don't receive special treatment'. This is Outright Denial. Of course they do. They don't pay major taxes simply because of a four hundred year old law.

They receive vast sums for their religious schools to the detriment of public schools against the principle of separation of church and state and their various charities receive direct grants which may or may not be appropriate.

They have prayers breakfasts in parliament house; politicians fawn over what they perceive is the Christian vote; voluntary euthanasia in the Northern Territory was killed off at the behest of the Catholic Church etc etc.