From: John Turner 
Sent: Tuesday, 8 November 2011 9:32 AM
To: NFP Reform Consultation
Subject: Charity status

Religion is rightly losing its grip over human thought. The Scandinavian countries lead the OECD countries in most aspects of human well being and in those countries religious influence is minimal. 

It can be clearly shown that the relationship between religiosity and well being is inverse, both between countries and, in the USA, between states. I have attached a chart which clearly illustrates this situation of the USA. In the chart the more green the better the situation for the state’s citizens. I have a second such chart for the OECD countries available but cannot at the moment locate it.

I have no objection to genuine charitable efforts attracting taxation benefits but where money is attracted to an enterprise for the purpose of proselytizing then the contributions should neither carry nor attract any external benefits.

It is ridiculous that a minister of religion, catering only to the imagined spiritual health of a parishioner, has a tax advantage over a genuine health professional acting to protect the actual physical health of that parishioner. 

In NSW at present, religious schools quite intent on ensuring that students accept religious dogma unthinkingly, have taxation advantages over the new ethics classes which are aiming to teach children to think clearly for themselves. In a just society that situation would be reversed.
John Turner

From: John Turner 
Sent: Tuesday, 8 November 2011 1:49 PM
To: NFP Reform Consultation
Subject: Addendum

I made a submission earlier today. I now wish to add a second attachment and have revised my submission accordingly. I could not locate the second attachment at the time of the earlier submission.

Revised Submission
Religion is rightly losing its grip over human thought. The Scandinavian countries lead the OECD countries in most aspects of human well being and in those countries religious influence is minimal. 

It can be clearly shown that the relationship between religiosity and well-being is inverse, between countries and, in the USA, between states. I have attached a chart which clearly illustrates this situation of the USA. In the chart the more green the better the situation for the state’s citizens. While the second chart does not draw attention to the influence of religion in the comparison anyone familiar with the extent of religiosity in various countries will recognise the parallelism.

I have no objection to genuine charitable efforts attracting taxation benefits but where money is attracted to an enterprise for the purpose of proselytizing then the contributions should neither carry nor attract any external benefits.

It is ridiculous that a minister of religion, catering only to the imagined spiritual health of a parishioner, has a tax advantage over a genuine health professional acting to protect the actual physical health of that parishioner. 

In NSW at present, religious schools quite intent on ensuring that students accept religious dogma unthinkingly, have taxation advantages over the new ethics classes which are aiming to teach children to think clearly for themselves. In a just society that situation would be reversed.
John Turner