I often look at people and think, 'I know the type' but if I were being brutally honest, I don't know anything at all and I am just fitting someone into a box to suit a limited view of reality. It is from this limited view that I have tried to expand myself so that I include everyone in life in my life, and in a way that doesn't involved stereotyping them. This is not the easiest thing to do, especially when many people do indeed follow predictable paths.
In any examination of others you must, and this really needs to be done, examine yourself, your situation and your life first. How are you to understand the person with whom you are interacting if you have no understanding of yourself? It cannot be done with any true meaning and will benefit neither party in the end. I have been called to reveal my past on many occasions, to undergo examination if you like, by others who will actually pass judgement on me based on that past. While all those yesterdays sit comfortably with me today, as they are days long gone, I am reminded of them and of the small fact I can still be punished for them over and over by everyone deeming they have a right to do so. Maybe they do, but it does make it hard sometimes.
With such situations facing me regularly I have been even more cautious of how I treat others and how I view them, their past and their lives in general. I don't want to be judged harshly by others for things that have happened in my past, so when I confront others who similarly has issues they would rather forget, I have afforded them this respect. I know how it feels and I do not want to one of those who inflicts pain on anyone because of wrong doing of the past.
Many people know me, so know of me and many have heard of me and more and more I am learning there are many who would rather hurt me that read my fiction. There are many who would rather judge me that to give me air. For my part I have already sought forgiveness for breaking the law in my youth, for doing things that were antisocial, so now I don't feel I have to seek forgiveness from everyone who discovers me and requires their own vested interests to structure yet another forgiveness. There was the saying, 'do the crime, do the time' - I have done the time, then I have done it again, and again, and again and I am doing the time over and over and over because everyone wants me to do it for them as well. I will never be free of my past, and I will never be free of punishment for it - though these days I don't punish myself, there are plenty of others to do that for me.
I will say, I use to look at people and think I knew what type of person they are, but now I look at people and think what type of complexity makes up the lives they must lead, and how many times must they say sorry in order to be allowed to draw breath and exist. I am not going to be another's judge anymore. I am not going to be someone who points fingers and whispers secrets or hearsay. While I do suffer from such things myself, I am not going to then do the same to others out of spite.
Yes, I broke the law a few times in my bad days, and on my bad days, and yes I was convicted, fined and punished. But no, I do not want you to extract another punishment to make you happy about dealing with me. Having now walked many kilomtres in shoes that did pick up mud, it is time for new shoes and better roads.
Robert
Thursday, 24 July 2014
Monday, 14 July 2014
In This Great Cry for Taxation
In looking back over the past couple of years I have seen a growing call for churches to pay tax, in fact the call is so vicious it sometimes suggest churches not paying tax is the reason the average person is poor. This got me to wondering, and seriously so. I mentioned on a rabid atheist site once that perhaps churches could be means tested and be evaluated on their work in the community and what services they supply, this was met with aggressiveness akin to racist rantings on message boards. It stands to reason, taxing a church that feeds and clothes the homeless in an entire community does not seem like the right thing to do. That said, some new atheist driven councils in some US cities are doing exactly this and are also passing laws that prohibit churches from feeding the poor, offering them clothes and blankets and in one case, a church was no allowed to offer shelter to homeless people during a snow storm. So, you see why I might be a little hesitant on just blanket taxing, or carpet bombing groups because of some other, deeper seated disagreement.
How would a means test work? A church does need to raise money, as many, if not all, support organizations in poor countries, through food aid, education, clothing and in the case of Christian Blind Missions, the creation of industries for the poor to not only work in, but to own for the benefit of their communities. So, means testing would need to allow for the areas the churche's fund, all of them, and if a said tax means that one or more of those services cannot continue, then the tax is harmful to others and even the community. While I can say means test the churches as easily as any person, I see the difficulties in policing such a means test.
Does that mean no tax on churches? This is where the means test may have some value. In the USA and in some churches in Australia we are talking about multi million dollar businesses, and in some instances tax havens for mega wealthy church goers (maybe not actual goers, but principles on church boards to be more accurate) So, if a church, after all its program costs, still has a million dollar is the bank as some kind of holding, then yes perhaps a means test should be applied and appropriate taxes paid yearly.
What I see as the blanket problem with the ALL churches must pay tax argument is that the money given to churches, donated, has already, in many cases, been taxed, though wages, business taxes and even goods and services taxes, so the money is taxed money, it isn't free money that has just appeared. If a blanket tax was introduced on donations, then we have a double taxation system on the same money, and a opening for taxation on all donations regardless of the cause, religions or need. This would be applying an extra tax to people of religion, while those of non religious beliefs and understanding don't have to pay the tax. Once that door is opened, where the extra tax can be charged on anything labelled a donation then everything we understand in the charity world will start to decline. Charities struggle to raise funds for the needy as it is, to suddenly tax them is a bit unreasonable.
So, what does the loud call about taxing churches really mean? It might surprise many that over 90% of churches operate just above the poverty line; yes many own their buildings, after decades of dedicated donations to help pay for them and some even have a few thousand in the bank to cover maintenance and running costs, like employing a minister. There are ministers in the USA on over a millions dollars a year in salary, and who live in multi million dollar mansions with church memberships over 5000... for these that means test I mentioned needs to come into play - someone in these churches is hiding money. For the majority of churches world wide, it is a near poverty experience.
I don't think a blanket tax on churches is called for, mainly because most of its general motivation is not driven by a sense of fairness and just consideration, but more by ideology and hate. You cannot construct a tax system based on the hatred of a group or organization.
We can all agree, as individual churches, there needs to be some kind of review process in order to get tax free status, rather than perhaps the automatic system in place. Over 90% of churches will be granted the tax free status, because of what they do, what they bring in to cover debts and plan for the future (we cannot rob people for future planning - otherwise why not increase taxes on personal pension funds). There will be many huge churches in the USA that will fail the tax exemption review, but when major contributors to some of these money havens are politicians and law makers, you can seed such a review will not come anytime soon.
What I want people to consider, is when you call out that churches 'should' pay tax, what are you really saying? Are you saying you are not religious, but religious people should be made to pay tax twice, or are you simply reacting to wealthy flaunting churches only.
The rear view is fogging up from rage that I see coming my way, so I might just pull over for a while and have a sleep.
Out
How would a means test work? A church does need to raise money, as many, if not all, support organizations in poor countries, through food aid, education, clothing and in the case of Christian Blind Missions, the creation of industries for the poor to not only work in, but to own for the benefit of their communities. So, means testing would need to allow for the areas the churche's fund, all of them, and if a said tax means that one or more of those services cannot continue, then the tax is harmful to others and even the community. While I can say means test the churches as easily as any person, I see the difficulties in policing such a means test.
Does that mean no tax on churches? This is where the means test may have some value. In the USA and in some churches in Australia we are talking about multi million dollar businesses, and in some instances tax havens for mega wealthy church goers (maybe not actual goers, but principles on church boards to be more accurate) So, if a church, after all its program costs, still has a million dollar is the bank as some kind of holding, then yes perhaps a means test should be applied and appropriate taxes paid yearly.
What I see as the blanket problem with the ALL churches must pay tax argument is that the money given to churches, donated, has already, in many cases, been taxed, though wages, business taxes and even goods and services taxes, so the money is taxed money, it isn't free money that has just appeared. If a blanket tax was introduced on donations, then we have a double taxation system on the same money, and a opening for taxation on all donations regardless of the cause, religions or need. This would be applying an extra tax to people of religion, while those of non religious beliefs and understanding don't have to pay the tax. Once that door is opened, where the extra tax can be charged on anything labelled a donation then everything we understand in the charity world will start to decline. Charities struggle to raise funds for the needy as it is, to suddenly tax them is a bit unreasonable.
So, what does the loud call about taxing churches really mean? It might surprise many that over 90% of churches operate just above the poverty line; yes many own their buildings, after decades of dedicated donations to help pay for them and some even have a few thousand in the bank to cover maintenance and running costs, like employing a minister. There are ministers in the USA on over a millions dollars a year in salary, and who live in multi million dollar mansions with church memberships over 5000... for these that means test I mentioned needs to come into play - someone in these churches is hiding money. For the majority of churches world wide, it is a near poverty experience.
I don't think a blanket tax on churches is called for, mainly because most of its general motivation is not driven by a sense of fairness and just consideration, but more by ideology and hate. You cannot construct a tax system based on the hatred of a group or organization.
We can all agree, as individual churches, there needs to be some kind of review process in order to get tax free status, rather than perhaps the automatic system in place. Over 90% of churches will be granted the tax free status, because of what they do, what they bring in to cover debts and plan for the future (we cannot rob people for future planning - otherwise why not increase taxes on personal pension funds). There will be many huge churches in the USA that will fail the tax exemption review, but when major contributors to some of these money havens are politicians and law makers, you can seed such a review will not come anytime soon.
What I want people to consider, is when you call out that churches 'should' pay tax, what are you really saying? Are you saying you are not religious, but religious people should be made to pay tax twice, or are you simply reacting to wealthy flaunting churches only.
The rear view is fogging up from rage that I see coming my way, so I might just pull over for a while and have a sleep.
Out
Monday, 7 July 2014
I Am Not So Silent
This is a renewed blog post from back when I thought I might have something to say to the world at large. I have considered many things in life, from marriage, children, writing and of course the state of our world. I can say I love my wife, I love my children and in general I love life, but I have come to despise humanity and its belief the minority positions of racism, sexism, climate change denial and even the harsh treatment of asylum seekers holds sway over what is intelligent, just, and civil. In these last few weeks Australia, a so called civilized country, intercepted an asylum seeker boat in Australia waters, the navy, under instruction of the Australian government took these people who were fleeing persecution and torture and gave them back to the very people they were fleeing, where they were imprisoned with long prison sentences, torture and in the case of children, possible death. Can you at least understand my anger at such a thing happening in my name as an Australian.
I didn't start this blog to be political, but as a man who is concerned about the state of treatment of those who are most vulnerable I found I could not call myself a writer and author without holding a position ab out the world around me and which influences what I write. The asylum seeker issue is juts one of many, but perhaps the only one that really draws an emotional response at times, and I think all writers, who themselves are often reflections of the world around them, do need to hold some kind of position. For too long I have watched an industry I am apart of be silent and I have often wondered why; there of course could be many reasons but I cannot discount the positions of self preservation in an industry mostly controlled by media empires that promote the worst parts of society and the position of general apathy.
Not all writer, artists, creators of many kinds sit in the mentioned camps, but it has been a growing silence from the top end of the industry that often saddens me. My position on many things may indeed create an unbankable resource for investment in my work, but if I had to swallow my tongue to appease the hate preached by Rupert Murdoch I don't think I could manage it for very long. That is of course my position and I do not expect others to make the same sacrifice I do, such a thing would be quite unreasonable and in the process of sacrifice we would lose great voices from the world. There are many ways to enforce silence these days and sadly it really is a Catch 22 situation.
My writing often does venture into elements of today's activities, my novel Lycanation - The First Queen ( http://www.lycanation.com/the-first-queen/parts ) does deal with asylum seekers in a way, but I also address reasons for the for and against positions evenly so the reader is no confronted with my strong view, but given the opportunity to have a choice.
In my novel Uttuku (http://www.amazon.com ) I explore another area of interest, mental illness and it effects on day to day living. So I do have social issues in mind when I write, though not everything I write deal with a social issue.
This is my first blog in a few years and it is a bit sporadic and lacks any true focus, but at least it introduces you to me and what I feel strongly about.
End transmission
I didn't start this blog to be political, but as a man who is concerned about the state of treatment of those who are most vulnerable I found I could not call myself a writer and author without holding a position ab out the world around me and which influences what I write. The asylum seeker issue is juts one of many, but perhaps the only one that really draws an emotional response at times, and I think all writers, who themselves are often reflections of the world around them, do need to hold some kind of position. For too long I have watched an industry I am apart of be silent and I have often wondered why; there of course could be many reasons but I cannot discount the positions of self preservation in an industry mostly controlled by media empires that promote the worst parts of society and the position of general apathy.
Not all writer, artists, creators of many kinds sit in the mentioned camps, but it has been a growing silence from the top end of the industry that often saddens me. My position on many things may indeed create an unbankable resource for investment in my work, but if I had to swallow my tongue to appease the hate preached by Rupert Murdoch I don't think I could manage it for very long. That is of course my position and I do not expect others to make the same sacrifice I do, such a thing would be quite unreasonable and in the process of sacrifice we would lose great voices from the world. There are many ways to enforce silence these days and sadly it really is a Catch 22 situation.
My writing often does venture into elements of today's activities, my novel Lycanation - The First Queen ( http://www.lycanation.com/the-first-queen/parts ) does deal with asylum seekers in a way, but I also address reasons for the for and against positions evenly so the reader is no confronted with my strong view, but given the opportunity to have a choice.
In my novel Uttuku (http://www.amazon.com ) I explore another area of interest, mental illness and it effects on day to day living. So I do have social issues in mind when I write, though not everything I write deal with a social issue.
This is my first blog in a few years and it is a bit sporadic and lacks any true focus, but at least it introduces you to me and what I feel strongly about.
End transmission
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)