This week the team sits down for a chat with PZ Myers (Pharyngula).  Naturally we talk about “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” (which I mistakenly called “no design allowed”), Crackergate and the finer details of transubstantiation and the Jewish blood libel, pets with souls, potential theocratic American futures, the Global Atheist Conference (held in Melbourne), and banning the burka.

Pastors and priests tell us about the loving God of the Bible.  How he brutally sacrificed his only son to demonstrate his undying love for creation. We are told God is peace, compassion, and of course love.

You might think given these qualities and the ability to influence the great prophets of the ages he might have inspired great moral teachings.  But have a look at some of the laws the old testament seers enacted:

Human Sacrifice

“The one who has stolen what was set apart for destruction will himself be burned with fire, along with everything he has.” – Joshua 7:15

“… sacrifice the priests from the pagan shrines who come here to burn incense, and human bones will be burned on you.” –  Kings 13:1-2

“You shall be fuel for the fire, your blood shall flow throughout the land.  You shall not be remembered.” – Ezekiel 21:33-37

“Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God.” – Deuteronomy 13:13-19

“Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin.” – Judges 21:10-2

Rape

“Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man.  Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.” – Numbers 31:7-18

“If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father.  Then he must marry her.” – Deuteronomy 22:28-29

“You may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you.” – Leviticus 25:44-46

“When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.” – Exodus 21:7-11

Slavery

“If the slave survives a beating for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.” - Exodus 21:20-21

“Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.” - Ephesians 6:5

Murder

“Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death.” - Deuteronomy 17:12

“You should not let a sorceress live.” - Exodus 22:17

“If a man lies with a male as with a women,  both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed.” - Leviticus 20:13

“.. a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death.” - Leviticus 20:27

“Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death.” - Exodus 21:15

You can also kill …

• Adulterers – Leviticus 20:10
• Fornicators – Leviticus 21:9
• Infidels – Deuteronomy 13:13-19
• False Prophets – Zechariah 13:3
• Virgins on their wedding night – Deuteronomy  22:20-21
• Blasphemers – Leviticus 24:10-16
• Anyone who Approaches the Tabernacle – Numbers 1:48-5
• People who work on the Sabbath – Exodus 31:12-15

Is this what an all loving God inspires?

Is this the pinnacle of morality?

Does anyone seriously believe this stuff?

Firstly I must apologise. We had lined up PZ Myers for an interview this week, but he became otherwise engaged.  We hope to schedule another time shortly.  In the meantime enjoy the ramblings of a few good men.

On the menu:

• Julia Gillard confirmed atheist
• Godless Gillard causes concern
• Public benefits test
• Transcripts of tax law amendment meetings
• Digital holy water
• Chemotherapy for Christopher Hitchens
• Whooping cough is declared an epidemic in California
• Buddha ant hill
• Atheists in Uganda

According to legend, God came down to the mountain and etched 10 rules of living into the rock for the people of Israel.  As we know, up until then the Israeli people were murdering each other, stealing stuff, working all the time, and coveting all over the place.  The Israelites knew God was serious after he killed all those people for building and worshipping that giant ass while he was busy with cavorting with Moses, who accidentally broke the stone tablets in the process (don’t worry, god faxed him another copy later).

“But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and consecrated it.” – Exodus 20:10-11

Now not working 1 day in 7 can really put a dent in your productivity.  The markets close, the lawns remain uncut, the goats udder’s bloat, and you can’t even turn on a light switch to read a book.  The Sabbath sucks, but what are you going to do – it’s God’s law.

Luckily, the Jews somehow know the bylaws of God’s commandments and have devised ways to exploit various loop holes.  For example, while God considers it work to carry car keys, tissues, or push a babies pram outside your home, so what do you do if you want to nip down to the corner shop for a Chiko Roll?

Those ingenious Jews figured they could all own the village for the Sabbath, therefore go wherever they wanted – at least within the village walls.  This way, since they aren’t crossing legal boundaries they would not be breaking God’s cosmic real estate laws, or divine commandments.  On Sunday (yeah, different Sabbath people) everything can return to legal normality with each participant owning their own property again.  It’s brilliant I tell you!

Moreover, the walls delimiting the village do not need to be actual walls – God accepts symbolic walls, doors, and windows as well.  So the Israeli people to not have to go to the bother of actually building real walls with opening doors and sliding windows – they can just string up a few wires around the common property with symbolic doors, then sit back, enjoy a brew, and admire their work.  And so the Eruv was born.

Why am I telling you all of this wondrous information?  Well, the Orthodox Jewish community in St Ives want to suspend overhead wires on 27 poles to form an Eruv in Northern Sydney – complete with make believe doors and pretend windows no doubt.

Apparently the community members are coveting the freedoms the rest of us enjoy and wish to exist their homes whenever they damn like.  Now I would not stand in anyone’s bizarrely superstitious way, but the residents are concerned about the landscaping, environmental, and visual impacts these wires will have.  Fair enough.

Personally I am more worried about the mental stability of individuals who think the creator of the universe is so easily fooled by simple legal manoeuvres and almost non-existent symbolic walls.  Such shoddy workmanship on his 10 most precious commandments leaves me seriously wondering about the intricate and complicated mathematics used to run the universe.

Members of the Jewish community were approached for comment, but were unavailable.  It’s the Sabbath.

Like all other discourse in society, religious conversations hinge on the definitions of specific words.  To facilitate meaningful discussion it is important that everyone involved agrees on the specific interpretations of the words and phrases used so that the all parties have a clear understanding of the message being conveyed.  Many hours have been wasted arguing positions without clearly understanding the underlying definitions, therefore misinterpreting the messages conveyed.

For example, the word “atheist” has specific meaning to the individuals using it.  Although, it may not be immediately apparent different definitions might be in play until well into the debate.  Some usages of the word immediately give away meanings in theological discussions.  For example:

• Atheism has no solid philosophical basis.
• Atheism has no basis for morality.
• Atheism has no explanation for the origins of the universe.
• The horrors of Hitler, Pol Pot, and Stalin were due to atheism.
• Atheism is a religion.

These examples (and many more) display a profound ignorance not only the word “atheism” but what it is or is not, as the case may be.

The term “atheism” originates from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning “without gods”.  Originally it was applied negatively to those who rejected the gods worshiped by the community at large.  As such, Christians were originally called “atheists” since they did not believe in the many Greek gods on offer.  Instead they asserted their three-in-one deity as the … ummmm … one true god.

The New Testament refers to “atheists”, but only once.  Papyrus 46 (one of the earliest New Testament manuscripts in existence) mentions atheists in Epistle to the Ephesians (2:12).  It is usually translated into English as “[those who are] without God”.  It seems there has always been educated people who reject the bizarre claims of the godly.  So much for “the new atheists”.

“Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called ‘uncircumcised’ by those who call themselves ‘the circumcision’ (that done in the body by the hands of men) — remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world.” – Ephesians 2:11

Early usages of the word suggest it’s meaning to be “godless”, “ungodly”, or “impious”.  With this definition and the historical usage in mind it is easy to understand the connotations atheism carries today among those unfamiliar with what atheism truly is, or more accurately, is not.

By the 5th Century atheism began to mean “severing relations with god” or “denying the gods”.  Many still operate under this definition today under the misapprehension that any usage of the word “god” automatically refers to the an extant entity – the god they happen to believe in.  Of course, this is a ludicrous assertion as one must also accept the existence of (operating under the exactly same logic) leprechauns, unicorns, gremlins, ghouls, kraken, and Cthulhu.  Why would these words exist unless otherwise?  It is interesting to note that records of debates between (say) Christians and Hellenists would often use the word “atheist” when referring to the opposing side.  These are clearly not atheists as we understand them today.

The term English word “atheist” comes from the French “athéisme”, which appeared around 1571.  Related words emerged shortly afterwards; deist in 1621, theist in 1662, theism in 1678, and deism in 1682 – although the definitions of these words not fixed in those early days.

Karen Armstrong, a former Catholic Nun and author of many comparative religious works, writes:

“During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the word ‘atheist’ was still reserved exclusively for polemic … The term ‘atheist’ was an insult. Nobody would have dreamed of calling himself an atheist.”

Atheism was first used to specifically denoting disbelief in the monotheistic Abrahamic god in the late 18th-century.  In the 20th century, globalisation contributed to the expansion of the term to refer to disbelief in all deities. In the Western atheism is still simply “disbelief in God” (a term I am personally uncomfortable with for reasons I will explore shortly).

Even today there is disagreement on how exactly to define atheism.  The areas of debate seem to centre around which supernatural entities it applies to.  Is atheism an assertion in it own right? Does it require a conscious and explicit rejection?  Categories have been proposed to deal with these difficulties, but I believe them to be mostly confusing and largely unnecessary.

All people who have never heard of a god are implicitly atheist.  This includes babies, societies without supernatural beliefs, or individuals incapable of forming a coherent thought.  In opposition to implicit atheism and theistic innatism (the idea that all people believe in God from birth); is explicit atheism.  Those who have considered the god hypothesis and rejected it, for whatever reason.  Many who subscribe to theistic innatism consider atheists are simply in denial.  How many times have you heard the phrase “everyone believes in god, even if they don’t know it”?

“The man who is unacquainted with theism is an atheist because he does not believe in a god. This category would also include the child with the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved, but who is still unaware of those issues. The fact that this child does not believe in god qualifies him as an atheist.” – George H. Smith

Philosophers such as Antony Flew have propose further categories of atheism – positive and negative atheism for example, though not in the sense that positive is good and negative is bad.  Positive atheism is the explicit affirmation that gods do not exist, while negative atheism includes all other non-theistic positions.  I prefer the modifiers strong and weak, leaving positive atheism for honest, morally upright, progressive, enthusiastic disbelievers in gods.

Strong atheists either assert there is no god, or (less forcefully) claim the statement “there is at least one god” is false.  While this is certainly a stronger claim, I believe it is a weaker position.  Since this a claim to knowledge it attracts the burden of proof, and proving the non-existence of anything has always been tricky.

Practical atheists live as if gods do not exist, or are not important considerations - apatheists.  Practical atheism can take many forms, but usually the existence of gods is not explicitly denied. Many people claiming to believe in a god (ticking the Christian box on a census form for example) do not give any practical consideration to their proclaimed faith in everyday life, thus might be considered practical atheists.  On the other hand, theoretical atheists posit arguments against the existence of gods, usually in response to theistic claims.

You might notice that none of these definitions address knowledge, but argue about the belief.  This is because atheism deals with belief, not knowledge.  There is no requirement to extend any claims to knowledge when dealing with atheism – theists are making the claims, let them demonstrate them as true.  In this light one can concurrently claim to be agnostic (not claiming knowledge either way) and atheist (I do not believe).  Extreme philosophical skepticism does not allow knowledge to truly …. well ….. be known, but that does not prevent a position of belief to be stated.  Nor is it accurate to conclude that because we cannot claim absolute knowledge that all beliefs are equally valid.  Such positions seem indefensible.

“Atheism is the rejection of theistic claims due to the lack of sufficient supporting evidence.”

In my mind atheism is not the claim there is no god, or the disbelief in god (which assumes there is a god to disbelieve in), or a set of tenants, rituals, or beliefs.  Atheism is the rejection of theistic claims due to the lack of sufficient supporting evidence.  Atheism is the result of skeptical inquiry into god hypothesis. Atheism is a conclusion. A rejection. A lack of a belief.  It’s certainly not a religion, but the antithesis of such.

So what am I?  I am a explicit, positive, weak, agnostic, practical, and theoretical atheist.

What are you?

Rather than address the rampant sexual abuse within its ranks, or examining the probability of condom failures and their link to the spread of AIDS in Africa, or considering the implications of preventing research on a handful of cells weighed against the suffering of full grown adults, or allowing women the same rights regardless of the apparent sex of their deity, the Catholic Church has decided to the most pressing issue of the day is the secularisation of the West.

“Pope Benedict XVI is creating a new Vatican office to fightsecularization and “re-evangelize” the West — a tacit acknowledgment that his attempts to reinvigorate Christianity in Europe haven’t succeeded and need a new boost.”

It seems the European climate has become too educated for the Catholic faith.  The critical light of reason, evidence, and science has resulted in Catholicism wilting and slowly dying.  I am going to assume Pope Palpatine has invented a device to spread blinding ignorance and mind-numbing fear through an unsuspecting public.  It’s worked in the past.

“Benedict said parts of the world are still missionary territory, where the Catholic Church is still relatively unknown. But in other parts of the world like Europe, Christianity has existed for centuries yet “the process of secularization has produced a serious crisis of the sense of the Christian faith and role of the Church.”

If the Pope’s plan of orbiting lobotomy lasers fail, a easier strategy to expand the faith (other than actually demonstrating their bizarre claims are actually true) is to invade lands that are uneducated, mostly desperate, and wholly ill prepared to defend themselves against the horrifying dogma of eternal torture and genocidal gods.

How dare we expect people of all beliefs to live together in peace and harmony.  Secular indeed! How very unchristian of us.

Yeah, that makes sense.

Christopher Hitchens has made an announcement – he has throat cancer.

I have been advised by my physician that I must undergo a course of chemotherapy on my esophagus. This advice seems persuasive to me. I regret having had to cancel so many engagements at such short notice.

This is somewhat shocking, yet understandingly predictable given Mr. Hitchens personal vices. The sad news also serves as an unwelcome reminder that each of us shines for a brief time before returning to the void – even our heroes.

Just pause for a moment to think about this: not too many years ago medical science had no idea what cancer was, let alone how to treat it. Modern understandings of the human body obtained through education, dedication, and millions of man hours of careful observation has resulted in knowledge about this terrible disease. Science is the only methodology that will save Hitchens and others from suffering, pain, or possibly death.

Prayer is pretending to do something to make yourself feel better.  It’s nothing more than wishful thinking.

I wish Mr. Hitchens all the very best, and sincerely hope he makes a speedy recovery. I take it your in the best medical care available.

This morning during a radio interview on 774 ABC Melbourne, the new Prime Minister of Australia Julia Gillard was asked point blank:

“Do you believe in God?”

Her reply:

“No I don’t, John”

Julia went on to say she was raised in a Baptist household and attended church regularly, but decided to “pursue a different path in her adult life“. The Prime Minister believes people can be decent, moral, upstanding citizens without pretending to believe in a deity to attract the religious voters.  What is more important to her is the welfare of the Australian people – regardless of their religious convictions.

It is hugely refreshing to hear a politician talk so openly and honestly about their faith, or lack thereof.  I am unaware of any other current major political leader who has openly admitted their disbelief (according to the comments, there are plenty).  Julia’s credibility just jumped a few notches in my books.

Update 1: Thank you to PZ Myers for linking this short article on his fantastic blog.  Welcome all pharyngulites.

Update 2: Jason Ball (and others) from The Young Australian Skeptics were interviewed on Australia’s TripleJ radio station on this issue.

In previous episodes of the podcast we have spoken about the horrors of superstitious beliefs in Africa.  Albinos are murdered and harvested for their magical internal organs, children are accused of witchcraft, beaten, tortured, and rejected by their families to live on the streets, women are burned alive for casting spells, and families enjoying the World Soccer are under threat from radical Muslims who view the sport are evil.  But fear not, there are rational forces at work combating this insanity.

The Atheist Association of Uganda is an organsation which recognises “there is no scientific evidence for supernatural phenomena, atheists reject belief in `God’, gods and other supernatural beings“.  The world desperately needs level headed and logical people like these to teach, inform, and educate.  If you want to help, you can.

The Atheist Association of Uganda need your help to raise approximately US$7,500 to cover travel and accommodation expenses the author of “We are all Africans“, Kwadwo Obeng.  A free sample of the book can be downloaded from their web site (registration required).

Media release:

The Atheist Association of Uganda (AAU) wishes to inform you that its organising a speaking tour for Mr Kwadwo Obeng, the author of a book called “We are all Africans”.AAU have talked with him and accepted our invitation to come on a speaking tour in Uganda in November 2010. The theme of discussion is “The dangers of theocracy in African Governments”

Below is the programme we have drafted for him:

Ndejje University on 1st November 2010 Kampala Central region

Kyambogo University 2nd November 2010 Kampala Central Region

Makerere Univeristy 3rd November 2010 Kampala Central Region

Mbarara University 4th November 2010 Mbarara Western Uganda

Gulu University 5th November 2010 Northern Uganda

And he will be finishing with a Public debate on 6th Serena International conference center in Kampala. AAU hopes that its this event that Mr Kwakwo Obeng can speak to Member of Parliament,Political Party leaders and the general public. We also hope that,may be those attending a public debate will pay some attendance fee. It will not be easier making University students pay. Lets start thinking about it. AAU would like to seek financial support but not sure where exactly.

Atheist Alliance International have also promised to contribute the
Airfare to make the even a success.

For more information,you can contact
Mr. Stuart Bechman
President Atheist Alliance International
sbechman@sbcglobal.net, president@atheistalliance.org
www.atheistalliance.org

Mr.Kwadwo Obeng
We are all Africans Inc.
www.weareallafricans.com

Kirumira Mpagi Micheal
President AAU
President@aauganda.net

Kirumira Mpagi Micheal
President for AAU

MEDIA RELEASE
Senate Inquiry: Atheist Foundation President calls for accountability measures for religious charities.

Today, David Nicholls, President of the Atheist Foundation of Australia gave evidence in support of tax breaks to charitable organisations operating within Australia, while calling for enhanced accountability.

“The AFA is strongly in favour of granting tax concessions to genuine charities that give assistance to combating poverty, illness and the problems of our aged citizens,” he said.

While a charity is a non-profit-making organisation, most organised religions today own corporations with vast reserves, and holdings in equities ranging from stock market shares to real estate and manufacturing with profits in the billions.

Unfortunately, it is common practise that only small amounts of these profits are ploughed back into charitable works, while the majority of tax-free revenue is used to increase assets, and simultaneously, religious influence.

At the hearing David Nicholls stated “The facts are damning. The estimated untaxed income of religions in 2009 was about 30 billion dollars. Australian taxpayers have to make up that shortfall.”

“The AFA demands that only the charitable arms of religions receive tax relief, but only if, like all secular charities, their books are open to inspection and auditing; they do not restrict their charity to their own adherents; and they abide by every provision of the United Nations Charter of Human Rights,” he said.

It is the opinion of the Atheist Foundation of Australia that blanket support of religions through tax breaks should cease, and the charitable arms of religions should only receive taxation concessions if they are accountable to the Australian public.

“The Atheist Foundation of Australia, along with all Australian taxpayers eagerly await the Government’s response to this important Inquiry.” Mr Nicholls said.

Contact:

David Nicholls
President
Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc
Private Mail Bag 6
MAITLAND SA 5573
Ph: (08) 8835 2269

Email: info@atheistfoundation.org.au
Web: http://atheistfoundation.org.au
Forum: http://atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/
Convention: http://www.atheistconvention.org.au

There is nothing here I do not agree with.

In this episode Ollie and Andrew sit down for a chat without the others members of the team distracting them.  We apologise for the results in advance.

References

Cease and Desist Fail
Two football fans killed by anti-football Islamist fanatics in Somalia
Is the Catholic Church a force for good in the world?
South African doctor invents female condoms with ‘teeth’ to fight rape
Cancer victim ‘fanatical’ about her faith, inquest told
Australians losing the faith
Grope the Pope
Creepiest Picture of the Week
Request For Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott To Address Secular Voters

Back in episode 2.1 I spoke about Andrew Finden’s (Findo) 12 facts of Jesus and largely dismissed them out of hand.  After Andrew made a few comments on this web site (see here, here, here, and here) we reignited our conversation.  After a short salvos each way, we agreed that I should look at “the 12 factual claims historian agree upon” before proceeding onto any implications resulting.  So let’s have a look at these 12 facts:

1) Jesus died due to crucifixion

Really?  The Romans were apparently meticulous record keepers.  Surely one of them would have written down the names of those executed and Jesus would appear on a list dated to around 36 AD?  Nope, nothing.  Also keep these curious facts in mind:

1. Jesus is reported to have only written a few things down, then immediately erased them leaving no trace.
2. There are no depictions of Jesus from the times he was reported to have lived.  We have no idea what he looked like.
3. Jesus left no physical trace for any supposed miracle.  Walking on water, feeding people, and healing disease do not leave long lasting evidence.
4. The reported pieces of the cross would probably fill an ark.
5. The Shroud of Turin is a proven fraud.  It’s even been accurately copied.
6. All we have are reports from self confessed eye witnesses (see this post), and
7. The documents we have date to decades after the supposed events.

This is shaky data indeed. It’s like Jesus never really existed at all.

2) …was buried afterwards

Not an amazing claim. I would expect people have been burying the dead for a long time.  They stink up the place.

3) Jesus’ death caused the disciples to experience despair and lose hope, believing that their master was dead.

Follows.  No big deal there.  Perfectly believable.

4) The tomb in which Jesus was buried was discovered to be empty just a few days later.

This of course assumes there was a guy called “Jesus” in the first place, and he was buried honourably to spite the extreme humiliation he experienced leading up to his death.  While this point does not mention it directly, it does elude to the central miraculous claim of Christianity – Jesus rose.  Assuming there was a Jesus for the sake of argument, there are still many more plausible explanations for empty tombs without resorting to the supernatural.

5) The disciples had real experiences which they thought were literal appearances of the risen Jesus.

I do not doubt that people have “experiences” which they can believe to be many things.  People report seeing Elvis is Michael Jackson, or describe in great detail being abducted by aliens and experimented on, often sexually.  Many of these people are totally convinced their experiences are real, does this make them so?

6) The disciples were transformed from timid and troubled doubters afraid to identify themselves with Jesus to bold preachers of his death and resurrection who were more than willing to die for their faith in him.

Ahh, the old “people wouldn’t die for a lie” line.  Problem is – they do.  It is sufficient for people to really believe their claims in order to perform extraordinary acts based upon those beliefs.  For example, the Heaven’s Gate Cult committed suicide to hitch a ride on an alien space craft hidden in the tail of Haley’s comet.  Crazy, to be sure.  Are we to believe that based solely on this fact that their beliefs were somehow true?

7) This message was the center of preaching in the earliest church.

And?  Many religions were started by small groups of people making extraordinary claims.  This does not make any of them true, but they can all be wrong.

8) Was especially proclaimed in Jerusalem, the same city where Jesus had recently died and had been buried.

Errr – where is the surprise?

9) As a direct result of this preaching, the church was born.

This is a restating of “facts” 7 and 8.

10) Featuring Sunday as the special day of worship.

Completely non spectacular.  It’s also contested within the Christian community.  Waving your hands and saying Jesus or the disciples abandoned the existing Sabbath to establish their own does not make it fact.  It hardly makes any sense.

(11) James, a brother of Jesus who had been a skeptic, was converted when he believed that he saw the resurrected Jesus.

There once was a skeptic, just like you.  He saw the risen Jesus and instantly converted to the one true religion.  You should too.  Blergh.

11) A few years later, Paul was also converted to the Christian faith by an experience which he, likewise, thought was an appearance of the risen Jesus.

According to the primary sources of this “fact”, Paul never met Jesus nor was a follower his prior to this reported experience.  While books could, and have, been written about Paul, all I need demonstrate here is that revelations are necessarily  first person.  Paul says he had an experience.  He says is was Jesus.  He says.

Ultimately, I am not that impressed with these “factual” claims, but I will persist with the exercise.  There are a number of documents Findo has referred me towards which (I believe) make the historical case behind these facts undeniable.  I will post my thoughts on these soon.

For the first time in Australian legal history, the Parliament’s Senate Economics Committee is investigating tax law amendments that might (if enacted) close a loophole exploited by religious organisations.

Currently, Australian Tax Office (ATO) automatically grants tax free status to organisations that make “supernatural claims”.  This means Catholics, Hindus, Muslims, Scientologists, Jews, Zoroastrians, and some Buddhists all do not have to pay tax, but the Raelians do (they believe in little green space men, who are not supernatural by definition).

Historically, religious organisations may have provided public benefit – helping the poor, clothing the homeless, providing shelter to the destitute, and building houses for those devastated by God’s natural disasters among other things.  However, these organisations also exist to promote their theology and spread the message of salvation, or whatever voodoo mojo they happen to believe.  This component of religious behaviour is arguably not in the public interest – especially in a country which is striving for multiculturalism and cohesive inclusion.

Today the President of the Atheist Foundation of Australia (David Nicholls) issued a press release regarding their submission to the Senate Economics Committee:

For the first time in the history of Australian politics a representative of a national atheist organisation has been asked to appear before a Senate Inquiry.  This is a significant event for the Atheist Foundation of Australia and all freethinkers.

David Nicholls (President of the AFA) will participate in a teleconference on Monday 28th June 3:30 PM – 4:15 PM (EST).  He will be commenting on the AFA Submission (No. 25), “Parliament of Australia: Senate: Committees: Economics: Inquiry into Tax Laws Amendment (Public Benefit Test) Bill 2010.”  The Submission can be viewed here.

The conference will be broadcast live on the 28th June.

Given the vast number of religious based submissions it is unclear how loudly our rational and secular voice will be heard, but it is important for all Australians that any tax breaks given benefit everyone, and are not limited to magical thinking sub sets.

Religious organisations wishing to continue providing charitable services are quite free to do so under the same rules, regulations, and scrutiny secular charities have endured for decades.  Open financial books, regular audits, and demonstrating your services are beneficial to society are all required by all organisations not trying to please space ghosts.  In a modern society, why are beliefs in spirits, ghosts, afterlives, or telepathic comic deities relevant to you tax status?

When have they ever been?

Hat tip: Seantheblogonaut

This week the entire team is on deck, including our resident radioactive time keeper keeper Jim who has risen like Lazarus from the dead.  Death has affected Jim’s brain and convinced him football and cricket are actually worth watching.  Guess there are repercussions. At least he has spent the time reading more of the Bible.  Well, a little bit more at least.

We also discuss if Cats should be allowed into the country, the idiocy of the Royal family, the complete insanity of not allowing your pets to receive blood transfusions, the irony of being killed during a good luck ceremony, and Muslim tits who want to breast feed but lock each other up if they kiss.

References

• Muslim Tits
• Ding Bat Prince Charles
• Death by Jehovah
• Cat Stevens denied?
• Blasphemous Underpants
• 12 killed in good luck ceremony