Posts by Lucy Stewart
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
But I agree that incorporating such principles into research is very fuzzy--other than providing consent forms in te reo Maori.
In the Uni of Canty biology department there's an iwi consultation process if any sort of work is being done with native species, I believe, especially those like the kotuku or kereru which have particular significance as taonga. And I wouldn't want to be the person who looked into anything involving any sort of genetic manipulation and native species, because I can guarantee you'd be looking at a very, very long consent process.
Seriously, who *are* you people? You are freaking my historian ass the hell out. :)
The sort who consider the past to be somewhere between boring, irrelevant, and inconvenient.
-
Anyone know why Tony Blair converted to Catholicism?
I'm always a little surprised when Anglicans do this (I can't tell the difference myself) and the converts seem to fit into two very different camps.
One of the most traditional ways the Catholic church acquires converts: his wife is Catholic by upbringing. I assume he found it impolitic to convert while he was still Prime Minister.
-
Is your desire driven by your attitude toward organised religion? Or because you think it would impact on the likes of Destiny Church?
It's because a) I think it would go a long way towards removing the potential for abuse in the system - c.f. the cornflakes. Of course, the potential for exploitation and abuse is most obvious in places like the Destiny Church where they're all Prosperity Gospel and motorbikes for the guy in charge. So that's what makes us talk about it, and I would certainly hope that changes would impact them and other equally exploitative groups.
Secondly, because I genuinely think that promoting your point of view about the world is not in and of itself a charitable exercise deserving of implicit government support just because this view takes the form of belief in a higher being/power/spirituality/what-have-you.
Religious groups are the only ones that get tax-exemption for their recruitment efforts. Why? I ask this genuinely - what about religion, and I don't mean anyone's specific religion, what about religion *as a concept* makes it of straightforward benefit to society?
As I said, I don't deny that it can inspire people to do great good, make people happy, whatever. But it can also do the exact opposite. Treating its spread as a charitable act is making a judgement that its mere existence is of benefit which I don't think is borne up by the evidence.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
I'm pretty sure there's a clear distinction between offering tax exemptions to those parts of organised religion which do recognised charitable work and appointing them to administer government tasks, in that one is a tax exemption and the other is...appointing them to administer government tasks.
-
The simple fact is, the major churches do an enormous amount of work in their communities. Whether or not you think organised religion is a good thing, it is impossible to argue that there is nothing good that comes from what the churches do.
I think I've been pretty clear that I think religious organisations often do good things, and obviously very many would qualify for tax-exempt status based on the charitable stuff they do, which is of immense importance to the community. I'm not calling for the banning of religious charities here.
But that doesn't mean the reason they should get that exception should be because they're religious. Religion can be an important and helpful part of people's lives. It can also do a huge amount of damage to people. Faith in a higher power doesn't make what you do right, or helpful, or anything except, well, religious. It certainly doesn't make you charitable. Nor does promulgating religion necessarily do anything except spread religion - which is not automatically of benefit. So why does the law, in this instance, act as though it is?
-
I fail to see why that is any less worthy of charitable status than a sports club or cultural entity.
It's more that, as the situation stands, anyone can set up an organisation whose income is tax-exempt by declaring it's religious. With sports clubs and cultural entities, there are quantifiable community benefits. Some of those same community benefits apply to religious groups (communal activity and such) but that's not *because* they're religious; it's more an offshoot. I fail to see why there should be an exemption specifically for religious bodies on the grounds that their religiosity and promulgation thereof is of benefit to the community, when that in and of itself is not necessarily the case. It may be enshrined in law. It doesn't make it right.
-
There really is no correlation between a charitable purpose such as relieving poverty and that of the practice and promotion of a particular religious opinion. The unavoidable truth is that Tamaki and many others are coining it because of an outdated notion of what constitutes charitable purpose.
Yes, that, precisely.
-
And you would like to take the on the challenge of drafting the legislation to close the loophole? You would, I assume, make it applicable to all classes of charity rather than just religious ones? Where would, say, Dilworth fit into the picture?
I'd say those rules should be generally applicable; if you're going to give people tax-exempt status they should have to pass pretty stringent tests to prove they deserve it. Dilworth seems extremely straight-forward to me; they're operating a school, i.e. educating people, i.e. a directly charitable act. If the money is funding that, then why would any reforms affect them?
Thing is: yes, of course it would be difficult and no, I'm not a tax lawyer. But I fail to see why that should stop anyone trying or why that means I'm not allowed to opine on it. The basic difference of opinion seems to be whether the promulgation and running of religion should be defined as a charitable act; I don't think it should be, because while religious people and bodies can do charitable things, religion *as an entity* is not necessarily charitable or helpful.
-
Why wouldn't it be? Clerics are employees, and subject to PAYE just like any other employee. Churches have to pay ACC levies, too. Heck, they even have to buy insurance.
Not having to pay income tax on their own income doesn't mean that churches are entitled to any other particular special treatment around their outgoings, except for the rating exemption on premises used primarily for worship.Which is good; I wasn't sure about that point. I still maintain that labelling any income churches receive as a charitable donation no matter what it's used for is dodgy, though.