We need to talk about secular humanism.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Have you looked at the date on this statement - 2002. So apparently in 2002 it was important that all organisations with charitable status should be subject to the same accountability requirements' - yet this will not happen until at least 2031. If this was important in 2002 how come it will take at least 29 years to achieve.

That's a question for the government and the Charity Commission presumably. As I said could be lack of political will because not enough voters care if churches are registered or not, plus general inefficiency -  what is your suggestion on how to convince the government and the Charity Commission to get on with it?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Hmm - yes, obviously requires at least 68 year to achieve this. Weirdly for the non religious charities this is achieved as they go along as if they have incomes greater than £5k then they must register - not 68 year extension for them.

More likely not enough voters care for it to be a government priority.

[ProfessorDavey]

There is probably little incentive in dealing with the project as the churches are raking money in without being registered. It seems the public like to donate to churches.

But I though this wasn't about a numbers game VG - see your reply 185. You do seem to be a little all over the place in your arguments.

And of course, by definition, we are dealing with small and micro charities here, those with income less than £100k. So regardless of whether they are religious or non religious they aren't raking money in by any stretch of the imagination.

And no VG, the public in a general sense, do not like to donate to churches - the charitable donations to churches come almost exclusively from their own church-going members, not from the general public. The only exceptions being cash donated by visitors to large cathedrals, and they aren't in the ;ess that £100k category anyhow.

Whereas the smaller charities want to be registered as it gives the public confidence in them and they get more donations.

I'm sure that small and micro non religious charities would be delighted not to have to go through the administrative bureaucracy of registering and reporting annually to the Charities Commission in the same manner as religious charities, but they aren't permitted that exemption.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But I though this wasn't about a numbers game VG - see your reply 185. You do seem to be a little all over the place in your arguments.

And of course, by definition, we are dealing with small and micro charities here, those with income less than £100k. So regardless of whether they are religious or non religious they aren't raking money in by any stretch of the imagination.

And no VG, the public in a general sense, do not like to donate to churches - the charitable donations to churches come almost exclusively from their own church-going members, not from the general public. The only exceptions being cash donated by visitors to large cathedrals, and they aren't in the ;ess that £100k category anyhow.
I'm sure that small and micro non religious charities would be delighted not to have to go through the administrative bureaucracy of registering and reporting annually to the Charities Commission in the same manner as religious charities, but they aren't permitted that exemption.

Church goers vs General public
Taxpayers vs churchgoers
Religious vs General public
It is another sinister direction down which you lead us.

[ProfessorDavey]

Church goers vs General public

Weird and there was me thinking that I used the phrase 'public in a general sense' - i.e. overall, the full demographic of the public, that's what general public means.

And the point is that the money raised by churches (and especially the small ones) comes almost exclusively from a small subset of the public, those who attend those churches for worship - which is about 5% of the population. The rest (the 95%) don't donate to churches, except perhaps when they visit a cathedral, effectively as a tourist, and those cathedrals aren't the charities we are discussing here.

So VG's hyperbolic claim that 'the public like to donate to churches' is flat out wrong Vlad.

[ProfessorDavey]

Taxpayers vs churchgoers

Where have I claimed that churchgoers aren't taxpayers Vlad.

[ProfessorDavey]

Church goers vs General public

Dictionary definition of General Public - note my emphasis:

ordinary people, especially all the people who are not members of a particular organization or who do not have any special type of knowledge

So if we are discussing donating to a church, people who are members of that church would not be considered to be the general public under that definition, as they are members of that particular organisation.

[ProfessorDavey]

More likely not enough voters care for it to be a government priority.

You may well be correct, but that statement doesn't lead where you think it does. So I'd image that if you surveyed members of the general public on the matter you get the following response.

1. That most people would have no idea that small religious and non religious charities were treated differently by the Charities Commission - indeed I suspect most people wouldn't know what the Charities Commission is nor how charities are regulated. However ...

2. When they know about the different treatment most people would think it wrong and unfair that two charities with exactly the same income were treated differently and that the special privilege should go. But ...

3. That the issue shouldn't be a major priority and the government shouldn't really be spending its time one it.

But, of course the government decided back in 1996 to get rid of the anomaly so if the government devotes no further time or effort on the matter the special privilege goes. Why it is still with us is because governments over the years have prioritised retaining the special privilege and devoted parliamentary time and effort in bringing forward new regulations several times to maintain the special privilege

So the point is that although the public are unlikely to consider it to be a priority, the government has prioritised maintaining an unfair distinction over a quarter of a century after it committed to get rid of it, when all they would need to do to get rid of it is to do nothing, and they'd already committed to get rid of it in 1996. And while the public probably think it is wrong and should go but not a priority you can bet your bottom dollar that the lobbying power of religious organisations who have highly privileged access to government and parliament will be campaigning to make the government prioritise parliamentary time and effort to retain the spacial privilege.

[jeremyp]

Firstly reducing the exemption would mean that parishes with income over £5k would need to register - I suspect there will be very few parishes with income below £5k, and I suspect there will be a lot in that £5k-£100k band who are currently benefiting from the special privilege, and of course there are huge numbers of non religious charities in that £5k-£100k band who have to register while the religious charities are exempt.

Fewer than you might think.

Secondly - sure many parishes are run by amateurs - so what, so are countless other non religious charities. I am a Trustee of two charities (both of which are required to register), I'm an amateur in that context. However being an amateur (i.e. an unpaid Trustee) doesn't mean you don't have skills - I'm sure there are plenty of unremunerated Trustees of religious and non religious charities who are qualified lawyers, accountants, successful business people etc.

Υes there are, but to be clear, I'm using this as an argument to do away with the current exemption, not to maintain it.

Also CofE parishes have the support of a huge higher level infrastructure above then to support them to fulfil their obligations as Trustees - I think that would make it far easier to be able to cope with the tasks of charity registration and reporting than for a small stand alone charity that may have no similar support.

That said - I agree that proper oversight is important for charities which is why I cannot accept a situation where some charities are given exemptions from registration and reporting obligation while other similar sized charities are required to.

You seem to have taken my post as a defence of the status quo. It wasn't intended as such. I see no reason why churches shouldn't be subject to the same rules as other charities.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't care. I have my opinions and you trying to shoehorn me into a particular box doesn't change them.

I'm not sure I'm out to change your opinions, only you can do that yourself. I'm more about degrees of secular humanism and secularism here based on a classification going back to the 19th century.

For example.

Outrider has already agreed that a scripture should not be quoted on state property even if the quotation reflects an astronaut's wonder at the moon and the government property is only there because of the skill of the astronaut. That is f*****g Hard Secularism.

I wonder what his attitude would be at Yuri Gagarin apparently laughingly reporting that he couldn't see God in space......approval?

[jeremyp]

I'm not sure I'm out to change your opinions,

No, you're out to misrepresent them.

only you can do that yourself. I'm more about degrees of secular humanism and secularism here based on a classification going back to the 19th century.

But nobody except you is claiming that it exactly fits all (or any) positions. You seem to be obsessed with putting labels on people's arguments instead of actually engaging with them.

Outrider has already agreed that a scripture should not be quoted on state property even if the quotation reflects an astronaut's wonder at the moon and the government property is only there because of the skill of the astronaut. That is f*****g Hard Secularism.

Don't blame Outrider for that. It's a consequence of the US Constitution and its interpretation by the US Supreme Court. What does it matter whether you classify it as hard or soft?

I wonder what his attitude would be at Yuri Gagarin apparently laughingly reporting that he couldn't see God in space......approval?

Those would be Yuri Gagarin's own words, not lifted from the holy book of one religion.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

But I though this wasn't about a numbers game VG - see your reply 185. You do seem to be a little all over the place in your arguments.

You're making little sense PD - you should try to make your point more clearly if you have one. The charities are not registered and they are receiving donations from the public. The public that are donating to churches may not be a large number, but whatever their number, and whoever they are, they seem to like to donate to unregistered church charities. 

And of course, by definition, we are dealing with small and micro charities here, those with income less than £100k. So regardless of whether they are religious or non religious they aren't raking money in by any stretch of the imagination.

It's all relative. Let's not get into another pointless discussion about English phrasing and grammar. Try reigning in your pedantry and stick to discussing the issue, as use of this kind of language is subjective.

And no VG, the public in a general sense, do not like to donate to churches - the charitable donations to churches come almost exclusively from their own church-going members, not from the general public. The only exceptions being cash donated by visitors to large cathedrals, and they aren't in the ;ess that £100k category anyhow.

By public I meant the people that contribute to and attend the church e.g. the parishioners. The users of the service who are members of the public and voters in general elections.

I'm sure that small and micro non religious charities would be delighted not to have to go through the administrative bureaucracy of registering and reporting annually to the Charities Commission in the same manner as religious charities, but they aren't permitted that exemption.

Some might prefer not to register but others may find they want the tax advantages of registering as a charity and the public have more confidence in them if they do register. And doing a charity annual return is not a big deal - it's online and doesn't take very long. I think the Charity Commission should try and hire some competent people to get church charities registered too - if the government will provide the funding. It may be that hiring competent people is expensive so they keep putting off getting this done.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Weird and there was me thinking that I used the phrase 'public in a general sense' - i.e. overall, the full demographic of the public, that's what general public means.

And the point is that the money raised by churches (and especially the small ones) comes almost exclusively from a small subset of the public, those who attend those churches for worship - which is about 5% of the population. The rest (the 95%) don't donate to churches, except perhaps when they visit a cathedral, effectively as a tourist, and those cathedrals aren't the charities we are discussing here.

So VG's hyperbolic claim that 'the public like to donate to churches' is flat out wrong Vlad.

Except it isn't a hyperbolic claim. But you are so often shown to be wrong on here PD that it doesn't surprise me that you are wrong yet again. The public who donate to church charities are referred to as "the public" because they are people in the community who use the service - a service performed for the benefit of the public.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

You may well be correct, but that statement doesn't lead where you think it does. So I'd image that if you surveyed members of the general public on the matter you get the following response.

1. That most people would have no idea that small religious and non religious charities were treated differently by the Charities Commission - indeed I suspect most people wouldn't know what the Charities Commission is nor how charities are regulated. However ...

2. When they know about the different treatment most people would think it wrong and unfair that two charities with exactly the same income were treated differently and that the special privilege should go. But ...

3. That the issue shouldn't be a major priority and the government shouldn't really be spending its time one it.

But, of course the government decided back in 1996 to get rid of the anomaly so if the government devotes no further time or effort on the matter the special privilege goes. Why it is still with us is because governments over the years have prioritised retaining the special privilege and devoted parliamentary time and effort in bringing forward new regulations several times to maintain the special privilege

So the point is that although the public are unlikely to consider it to be a priority, the government has prioritised maintaining an unfair distinction over a quarter of a century after it committed to get rid of it, when all they would need to do to get rid of it is to do nothing, and they'd already committed to get rid of it in 1996. And while the public probably think it is wrong and should go but not a priority you can bet your bottom dollar that the lobbying power of religious organisations who have highly privileged access to government and parliament will be campaigning to make the government prioritise parliamentary time and effort to retain the spacial privilege.

You have a vivid imagination PD.

Not sure where you imagine I thought my statement might lead. My point was simple - it was that spending money on the Charity Commission hiring staff to go through all the applications by church charities for registration and communicating with church charities to correct errors or clarify information is probably not a high priority for the government. Once charities are registered there will be additional work for the Charity Commission in dealing with queries and admin issues and that will cost more money for the government.

[ProfessorDavey]

Not sure where you imagine I thought my statement might lead. My point was simple - it was that spending money on the Charity Commission hiring staff to go through all the applications by church charities for registration and communicating with church charities to correct errors or clarify information is probably not a high priority for the government. Once charities are registered there will be additional work for the Charity Commission in dealing with queries and admin issues and that will cost more money for the government.

But there are far, far more non religious small and micro charities (i.e. below £100k income) - so if you want to reduce burden on Charities Commission focussing on exempting just one class of small/micro charity on the basis of religion makes no sense whatsoever.

[ProfessorDavey]

Except it isn't a hyperbolic claim.

It is a hyperbolic claims because you have no evidence that beyond the small minority of people who are active church goers (about 5%) that the rest of the population (the 95%) like to donate to churches. Indeed all the evidence suggests that the income of donation income of churches comes almost exclusively from donations made by their worshiping members and that churches (and indeed religious charities) are very low priority for people who aren't actively religious.

So actually the word hyperbolic isn't correct - the correct word to describe your claim VG, is ... wrong.

[ProfessorDavey]

The public who donate to church charities are referred to as "the public" because they are people in the community who use the service - a service performed for the benefit of the public.

Blimey - Vlad was complaining about my use of "the public" but you are really taking the biscuit. So non church goers are therefore not members of the public because they don't use the services of a church.

The public (i.e. the wide demographic of our population) do not "like to donate to churches" - a small subset of the overall population - active church goers are the ones who donate to churches, and presumably like to do so as they gain a direct benefit from the presence of a place of worship offering worship that they want to attend.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

But there are far, far more non religious small and micro charities (i.e. below £100k income) - so if you want to reduce burden on Charities Commission focussing on exempting just one class of small/micro charity on the basis of religion makes no sense whatsoever.

Those micro-charities may want the benefits they get from being registered. I know that the charity that I am a trustee of is happy to be registered. We get more donations, we get charity rates when we hire venues - the venues actually ask for our registered charity number for the hire contract and give us a discount. If you want to hire park spaces for an event, our Council offers a 60% discount if you are a local registered charity.

It's also useful in putting in financial controls and for general governance issues because we can make people follow governance rules by saying we are a registered charity.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

It is a hyperbolic claims because you have no evidence that beyond the small minority of people who are active church goers (about 5%) that the rest of the population (the 95%) like to donate to churches.

Straw man as I never made that claim.

Indeed all the evidence suggests that the income of donation income of churches comes almost exclusively from donations made by their worshiping members and that churches (and indeed religious charities) are very low priority for people who aren't actively religious.

So actually the word hyperbolic isn't correct - the correct word to describe your claim VG, is ... wrong.

Nope, just your over-active imagination again PD or your dishonesty in misrepresenting what I wrote.

[ProfessorDavey]

Some might prefer not to register but others may find they want the tax advantages of registering as a charity ...

For crying out loud VG, don't you understand the position here - the excepted charities gain all the benefits of charitable status including tax advantages, without having to register as a charity - that's the whole point. If you are a non religious charity you are required to register in order to gain those benefits. So charity A (income £20k - religious) no need to register, gets tax advantages; charity B (income £20k) cannot get the benefits without registering.

And doing a charity annual return is not a big deal - it's online and doesn't take very long.

If it is such a minor issue for non religious charities why is it such an issue for the religious ones. Are they all unable to use online systems!!!

[ProfessorDavey]

Straw man as I never made that claim.

Yes you did - you claimed that:

"It seems the public like to donate to churches." - that is not true unless you define 'the public' as not including the 95% of the population who aren't active church goers and do not prioritise donation to churches and donate very little to those churches.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Blimey - Vlad was complaining about my use of "the public" but you are really taking the biscuit. So non church goers are therefore not members of the public because they don't use the services of a church.

Again PD - please stop being dishonest and misrepresenting what I wrote.

The public (i.e. the wide demographic of our population) do not "like to donate to churches" - a small subset of the overall population - active church goers are the ones who donate to churches, and presumably like to do so as they gain a direct benefit from the presence of a place of worship offering worship that they want to attend.

The subset is part of the public, and as the public they donate to the church and benefit from its services and are referred to as the public because they are not the clergy or employees of the church.   

Try and retain the point that it is not a numbers game when you are making your own point PD, as it seems I have to keep repeating myself as you are failing to grasp this point. It doesn't matter if the majority of the public are not religious or do not donate. A large majority used to be religious and donate and the system needs to be changed from that time, given now there are far less religious people, but currently it is not a high priority to make that change due to the cost of the admin and time involved. 

[ProfessorDavey]

Again PD - please stop being dishonest and misrepresenting what I wrote.
 The subset is part of the public, and as the public they donate to the church and benefit from its services and are referred to as the public because they are not the clergy or employees of the church.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/public

relating to or involving people in general, rather than being limited to a particular group of people

You comment is nonsense - if I talk about "the public" liking this or liking that, that will generally be considered to represent a large proportion of the population not a small minority (see definition above). Or the following would be applicable.

The public like to engage in naturist activities
The public like to support Bristol Rovers FC
The public like to vote for the Green Party

In each case there is a small minority in the public that does engage in naturist activities, support Bristol Rovers and vote Green but it is nonsense and/or deeply disingenuous to claim that "the public" like these things.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Yes you did - you claimed that:

"It seems the public like to donate to churches." - that is not true unless you define 'the public' as not including the 95% of the population who aren't active church goers and do not prioritise donation to churches and donate very little to those churches.

Again you're wrong. The public does not need to be defined in the way that you suggest for the statement to be true.

The donors who are members of the public (as opposed to employees of the church) like to donate. Hence I said "the public like to donate".  I am not suggesting that most of the public like to donate - that's just your overactive imagination interpreting my words that way because you care about the numbers.

As I have said repeatedly it's not a numbers game. The churches provide a service that makes a section of the public happy. Good enough reason for the service to continue - so long as they are not breaking laws. Most people are probably indifferent. Unless you have evidence that 95% or even a majority are opposed to people donating to churches? 

[ProfessorDavey]

Again you're wrong. The public does not need to be defined in the way that you suggest for the statement to be true.

So a word doesn't need to be defined in the manner that it is ... err ... defined.

Using the accepted dictionary definition of the term The Public it is not correct to claim that "the public like to donate to churches".