Thread: Should the taxpayer fund housing for wounded Vets?

Originally Posted by JohnF

Hillsong being a church and the government wants to buy there votes. though I am a Christian and will always defend my beliefs any time belief is attacked, I do absolutely agreee with FenianEel's statement. on other threads before the election I have spoken saying Church and State should always be kept seperate, and the State [country] funding a Church like Hillsong is not Seperation of Church and State.

I would oppose the State funding my denomination--Our Denominational Schools are Funded by the State, and I do not like this, as I believe in Total Seperation of Church and State.

But I do not believe that a Church should pay tax on any funds that a member donates to it from the money he has earned and paid tax on. I give offerings money happily to my Church, and would be upset if the Government tried to tax this money, donated freely when the Church passes around the offering bag/plate. But that is different to a Government giving money to a Church who makes a lot of money from property development. Apostle Peter said "Silver and Gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee, Rise up and walk," Acts 3:6. SWee the Apostolic example is that Christians like Hillsong should not be hoarding wealth.

A Church that is led by God does not need money from the State

"And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: [29]And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. [30]Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith? [31]Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? [32](For after all these things do the Gentiles seek for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.
[33]But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you." Bible, Matthew 6:28-33.

"But my God shall supply all your need according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus." Holy Bible, Phillipians 4:19.

"And he [Jesus] said unto them, When I sent you without purse [without money], and without food pouch, and without shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing. [36]Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse [Money], let him take it, and likewise his food pouch: and he that hath no sword [Sword meaning Bible, Ephesians 6:17, Hebrews 4:12], let him sell his garment, and buy one." Holy Bible, Luke 11:35-36.
"

If a Church like "Hillsong" asks the State for money the Government should tell them to go and read all these passages in the Bible, and then ask God for the money.

More than just property....Im pretty sure they own Gloria Jeans in Australia as well. Enough reason for me to boycott their coffee.....
Well, I live in Melbourne so it's easy to find GOOD coffee anyway

They dont own gloria jeans but the 2 guys who do are members of the church they were on sydney radio last week about a court case they lost

Hamish I am with ya mate but there is public service and then there is public service. coppers, prison officer's, fireys and in some instances ambo's have a real risk of coping one on duty everyday because of the retarded society we live in, and should they get injured they are liable not to get anything unless they sue the government, bit crazy if you ask me

I reckon Squaddies coppers and the like should get pensions that have a bearing upon reality rather than hoping that super is going to come good for them, bout time the state and federal government thought about acting with integrity

Dont know if it has changed recently but serving soldiers etc are not allowed to sue the govt, in a war zone how would they provide a safe work place

Well, here goes. This will attract much flak, but it is my considered opinion and that of most of my former colleagues.

I worked in the Commonwealth welfare system. It is my firm belief that the entire Vets. Affairs roll receiving disability and TPI pensions, and the Centrelink Disability Support pension, should be subjected to a hard nosed review of their level of ability to support themselves, not their level of disability. Very few people are totally unable to engage in gainful employment and the pension systems should reflect this. I saw far too many who have little or nothing wrong with them. Far too many who have the ability to contribute to ther own support but choose not to.

The role of RSL advocates in training VA pension applicants in behaviour and symptoms at medical examinations is extremely suspect. Where you have a system in which psychiatrists say they are examining applicants who appear to be performing a role in a play, all giving almost exactly the same performance, then something needs to be done. There are far too many whose PTSD is the result of the availability of a pension, not of a disability. Many never had treatment before application and grant of pension, and have had no treatment since.

Don't get me started on the difference in treatment handed out to war widows as against civilian widows. Both categories face the same difficulties in life but the former receives far better treatment from the government and get largesse from the likes of Legacy as well. At least war widows can no longer draw both a VA and a DSS pension as was once the case. There is the ridiculous situation now that war widows continue to receive their pension if they remarry or commence a domestic relationship.

TPI pensions are "totally and permanently" in name only. Many continue to work in some capacity. And, like war widows, their pensions are exempt income and asset tests.

TPI pensions are extraordinarily generous when compared to the pittance paid to Age and disability pensioners by Centrelink. Centrelink pensioners who do not own their accommodation are the true poor of this nation. Their only hope is obtaining scarce public housing.

Public housing should be available to all in need not just wounded veterans. Much building needs to be done and this for financial reasons has to be paid for by the Commonwealth. The states don't have the resources.

Originally Posted by JohnF

A Church that is led by God does not need money from the State



If a Church like "Hillsong" asks the State for money the Government should tell them to go and read all these passages in the Bible, and then ask God for the money.

And the response from them will be that God is providing for them through the Government...

First, I am a "vet". anything I say reflects upon myself.
There are a number of issues here many are not aware of.
One is the perception of a vet, many think of vietnam and I'm not sure what ratio of volunteers to conscripts was . Many soldiers who served in vietnam were conscripts and had no choice about having to serve. These guys should without the blink of an eye get every conceivable concession available to them. Since Vietnam all Australian soldiers ie defence force personnel have been volunteers. It has been their choice, their prerogative to join the ADF and fight wars. The financial support and equipment they use now is astonishing. They now get paid handsomely to fight overseas.We struggled....in 1985 I was using 1945 issue equipment and second hand clothing such as jackets and coats reissued with about 4 or 5 names previously written in texta on varoius parts of clothing. I know its important that defence force personnel should have the best available facilities to do their best job and I guess theyve caught up in some of those areas eg,,,choice of best possible footwear, best sunglasses(I had to wear sunnies and it was a chore having to explain it to everyone above my rank and had to produce a "chit" everytime someone asked). What I 'm saying here is that the current volunteers really have it good.....its always bad in **** fight but to compare them now to our Vietnam Vets theres no comparo. and I agree, any and every employer should be held responsible for the health and well being of their employees .Even though they are volunteers they have chosen to do a job directed by the government that we elected and there should be a lot more support from the government and the general population regarding the welfare of these persons when they return home. Inside the minds of those who have seen combat is something that no ordinary person can ever perceive and for that alone they should get special priveledge. Those who have not seen combat have no perception.....none at all.

Originally Posted by ramblingboy42

One is the perception of a vet, many think of vietnam and I'm not sure what ratio of volunteers to conscripts was . Many soldiers who served in vietnam were conscripts and had no choice about having to serve.

The figure I recall Gen. Peter Cosgrove saying at the dedication of the National Service Fountain at the Australian War Memorial earlier this month, was that more than a third of the Australian force in Vietnam was made up of conscripts. More than 287,000 national servicemen served in the Defence Force between 1950 and 1972. And more than 200 died on active service in Vietnam and Borneo.

Cheers
KarlB