I think it's pretty simple. If a churches do charity work they're a charity, if they don't do charity work they're not a charity.
I see no reason why a church that puts up soup kitchen to feed the homeless, should be treated any differently than another organisation that does the same, while churches that don't have any charity programs shouldn't be treated as charities.
I don't disagree, but what should be treated as a charity; the church body itself or a seperate 'arm' of the church that does charitable things? Note that the bill states that a 'congregation' cannot be considered a charity. There is nothing to stop a St John's Catholic Church setting up a small volunteer charity affiliated with that runs a soup kitchen...but the Church
itself cannot be a charity. It's for auditing and accountancy purposes.
Reading the bill would help guys
Perhaps a definition of "charity" is in order, instead of just saying who's not a charity.
That can be arranged.
