Actually all churches should lose their charitable status
Radio NZ reports:
Te Atatū MP Phil Twyford has written to the charities regulator asking for Destiny Church to be struck off.
Around 30 adults and young children had to be barricaded into a room in a library in West Auckland last weekend when a group linked to Destiny Church tried to drown out a Pride Festival Event in Te Atatū.
Twyford’s formal complaint to Charities Services alleges the church engaged in wrongdoing.
“Destiny’s actions were certainly oppressive, which meets the definition of wrongdoing in the law, and so they should lose their tax deductible status,” he said.
I have condemned what Destiny did. But if using force to disrupt an event qualifies as wrongdoing under the Charities Act 2005, then so does using force to disrupt legal meetings and operations, such as Greenpeace does. You have to be consistent.
My long held view is that in fact no church should automatically get charitable status. They should only get it if their actions are charitable, rather than merely because they have a religious belief.
The Act defines charitable purpose as:
charitable purpose includes every charitable purpose, whether it relates to the relief of poverty, the advancement of education or religion, or any other matter beneficial to the community.
I don’t regard advancement of religion as any more beneficial to the community that advancement of socialism or advancement of capitalism or advancement of political beliefs. Just because your organisation claims its beliefs are linked to a God or spiritual belief, why is that automatically charitable? Why should the Church of Scientology be a charity?
Now don’t get me wrong. Many churches do many charitable things. And all the activities done by Presbyterian Support or the Salvation Army etc that help struggling families should be charitable and tax deductible. But preaching a series of beliefs should not be charitable. Why should Brian Tamaki as a political party leader be non-charitable if you donate to further his beliefs, but Brian Tamaki as a religious leader be charitable if you donate to further his beliefs?
So I would remove advancement of religion as a charitable purpose and allow churches to gain charitable status on the same grounds as everyone else – do they relieve poverty, advance education or benefit the community.