Posts by Joe Wylie
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I would put money on there being a significant decrease in the charitable activities of religiously-affiliated organisations due to the resultant impact on donations.
Interesting point. Even in this supposed agnostic/atheist hotbed, though, the tone of discussion strikes me as being much more thoughtful and nuanced than one would expect from "hordes" of straw people. Nobody's advocating renouncing Weetbix in response to Bishop Brian's latest antics.
-
I've been struck by the community and healthy environment I see in the couple of schools I've had contact with, quite different from my memory too.
Yeah, I must admit it didn't turn out to be all that bad. I mean, I was staggered when my brother drank holy water and his insides didn't turn to glass, as I'd been assured they would. Years later he's still in pretty good nick, despite being in a state of multiple mortal sin from missing mass on Sunday.
Who knows, if they ever get around to canonizing my favourite Catholic I might just rejoin the fold.
-
Joe, your arguement to exclude Catholic Schools from funding through the integration programme could easily include Kura and anyone else outside of your mold.
Why not celebrate diversity?With respect, that's not my argument.
Please consider, being involved in the raising of a special needs kid kind of places you in the position where diversity is more a way of life than an option. Being educated in a Catholic primary school back in the day left me with the impression that diversity is the last thing on the One True Church's agenda. While things are no doubt rather more enlightened these days, I can assure you that I'm possessed of far too expansive a disposition to go along with the idea of prescribing purgatory - or worse - for those who don't toe the line.
Let the churches run their own schools.
-
Is the thrust here, Brian shud pay tax on his gifts, which due to there size amount to income?
So SteelBalls and all gambling should be counted by the tax man & Lotto & little timmies $50 at Xmas from Nanna?How about, outside of a domestic relationship, putting the hard word on others for prezzies should be a tarring & feathering offence once one attains adulthood.
-
I guess I'm just a little confused as to how removing the advancement of religion as a charitable purpose fudges the division between church and state. You could argue that having it there, and thereby requiring the state to decide what is and is not the advancement of religion, fudges the lines considerably more. Treating religious bodies as the same as any other group which wishes to engage in charitable work seems less fudg-y to me.
Again, agreed. Giovanni's solution seems fine to me. Mike Homer's suggestion that churches be required to create separate entities to carry out their charitable works seems to have the potential to create the very state regulation that you seem concerned about. Provided the churches qualify as bona fide charitable organisations they should be free to direct their activities where they choose, without government direction or subsidy.
There are areas such as church-run schools where religious activities have become rather too co-dependent with the state for my liking. Years after the event it still rankles with me that, in discussing the case of a special needs child with an Education Department councillor, I was asked if I'd considered the Catholic system. Apart from being totally inappropriate for that particular person, I still have an unpleasant sense that the councillor might have been advancing their own religious agenda courtesy of the taxpayer.
-
Agreed Lucy. All I'm saying is that any potential fudging of the division between church and state can be - and has been - taken advantage of, by both parties.
-
Evangelicals tend to regard charity as a transaction, and often expect a commitment to their belief system in exchange for the help they may provide. Mainstream denominations such as Baptists, the clergy of which are often heavily involved in providing material assistance, largely treat such work as a Christian duty, and rarely impose conditions upon those who receive their help. As for that Cthulhu-tentacled entity the Catholic Church, there are both armies of selfless volunteers who provide assistance regardless of denomination and, as Craig mentioned earlier, mean-spirited elements that seek to extend their influence by coercion.
As Michael Homer notes, some churches have set up independent entities to administer their work. Most of these appear to be in response to the need for professionalisation, such as the Salvation Army moving into areas where their members lack specialised skills, such as vocational training, or the vast range of activities carried out by Presbyterian Social Services.
While some degree of reform as to what constitutes a charitable activity may well be necessary, in practice government regulation can lead to a form of collusion between church and state. John Howard's appointment of a reactionary Salvation Army officer to oversee a cynically conceived drug policy, and the use of poorly trained members of that Church as probation officers in Florida, are a couple of unfortunate examples.
-
Policy debates are for pointy-heads and politicians. We have a President.
Even those who most shamelessly fawned over Reagan's supposed political skills would have probably conceded, in their most private moments, that there was some truth in the claim that he could never have a Watergate because nothing that important would ever land on his desk. While Key might appear a touch 'presidential', there doesn't seem to be any suggestion that he's anything like such a hands-off frontman.
-
Joe, yip it is for some, for others St Francis is a guiding light.
Thanks for the link J.T. In fairness to St. Francis, there are a hell of a lot of critters that appear to blatantly ignore his teachings.
-
I know it's distinctly unfashionable on PAS to not bag organised religion at every turn, but there's a saying involving babies and bath-water that springs to mind when people start agitating to remove the tax exemption on churches because they see the likes of Scientology and Pope Brian.
It's unfortunately true that the social welfare arms of the Presbyterian, Salvation Army and Baptist churches, to name a few, have been more proactive in dealing with the corrosive effects of loan sharks on low-income groups than the government agencies charged with regulating such activity. While the Clark Government eventually passed some half-hearted regulation, it's rather telling that certain churches take the message of social justice more seriously than the party supposedly founded on those principles.