Information on cults, cultic groups, psychological manipulation, psychological abuse, spiritual abuse, brainwashing, mind control, thought reform, abusive churches, extremism, totalistic groups, new religious movements, alternative and mainstream religions, group dynamics, exit counseling, recovery, and practical suggestions for those affected by or interested in these subjects. Information on cults, cultic groups, psychological manipulation, psychological abuse, spiritual abuse, brainwashing, mind control, thought reform, abusive churches, extremism, totalistic groups, new religious movements, alternative and mainstream religions, group dynamics, exit counseling, recovery, and practical suggestions for those affected by or interested in these subjects
articles about cults


HOMENewsMembershipConferencesWorkshopse-Library

GroupsStudy GuidesTopicsLinksPeopleOrganizationsArticlesBook Reviews

Info for:Former MembersFamiliesMental HealthResearchEducationClergyPress

CSR Journale-NewsletterBookstore

About ICSADonateContact UsHelp
 

 

 
 

Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 3, No. 2, 2004

 

Cults and Religious Privileges in England and Australia: Can the Wheat be Separated from the Chaff?

 

Stephen Bruce Mutch, M.A., LLB


Abstract


This paper explores whether it is feasible in Australia to establish an adjudicative tribunal whereby harmful or deviant religious groups might be disqualified from receiving fiscal privileges provided to religions generally. The difficult question of the legal definition of religion, which generally includes groups pejoratively characterised as cults, is examined. Alternative approaches of entity disqualification by definition or an inclusive definition with subsequent policy disqualifications are discussed. It is concluded that religion is a term best utilized, if at all, as a tool of broad prima facie classification only, to which transparent public policy parameters might then be applied in different legislative contexts. Charity law is presented as an example of a legal context in which public policy criteria are applied to questions of entitlement. The gate keeping functions of the Charity Commission for England and Wales are presented as a model for a prospective adjudicative tribunal in the Australian Commonwealth. Community protections found in the UK Charities Act 1993 and Article 9 (2) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 are noted with approval. The potential impediment of s. 116 of the Australian Constitution Act 1900, which entrenches notions of free exercise and non-establishment, is also examined. It is concluded that interpretations of s. 116 requiring a non-discriminatory/neutral aid approach, or a strict separation of church and state, will be unlikely to prevail. Therefore it would be feasible, although not without some risk of judicial intervention, for the Commonwealth to establish a definitions tribunal dealing inter alia with religious applicants for Commonwealth fiscal dispensations. However, the existence of s. 116 would make it unlikely for State governments, which are unaffected by the section, to submit cooperatively to a Commonwealth definitions entitlement tribunal dealing with third sector entities which include by definition religious groups.
 

Full text available through ICSA E-Library.

 


Other contributions by author(s)

Article Index
 

 top ^

Live Search

Views expressed on our Web sites are those of the document's author(s) and are not necessarily shared, endorsed, or recommended by ICSA or any of its directors, staff, or advisors.  Copyright ©1997-2012  ICSA, Inc.