Free to worship
So, if I gather a group of like-minded friends, and we develop a philosophy - call it a religion if you like - we can go off into some isolated or fenced-in place; then run a business that sells goods on the open national and global market and
make huge profits. We can then jump through a few bureaucratic hoops, call ourselves a charity, and our lives will be tax-free.
Plus, we could make our own societal rules about who has rights, and who doesn't.
How come New Zealand is condoning the smoke and mirrors surrounding the practices of exclusive religious sects?
It is time to re-examine what is defined as a charity for tax purposes. Looking at the current definition, I don't see how Gloriavale and the Exclusive/Plymouth Brethren fit. They look after their own, are profit-making, and appear to care about no one outside of their communities.
New Zealand taxpayers are subsidising and condoning tax avoidance and myopic, misogynistic lifestyles in the name of charity.
Vicki M Carpenter, Grey Lynn.
Anthemic advice
Regarding the racist attack on the Chinese New Zealander in Albany on Sunday (NZ Herald, July 25), I remember singing the second verse of our National Anthem in high school:
"[Those] of every creed and race gather here before thy face, asking thee to bless this place, God defend our free land.
"From dissention, envy, hate and corruption guard our state.
"Make our country good and great. God defend New Zealand."
It needs to be more widely known.
Sue Newman, Beach Haven.
Useful laws
Jarrod Gilbert (NZ Herald, July 25) stresses the importance of reducing the demand for meth, and speaks positively of Te Ara Oranga, which uses police operations to identify those with drug problems.
He also points out the huge profits currently made by gangs and tells us this profit ensures any imprisoned dealer is quickly replaced.
So Te Ara Oranga only identifies users after they've committed crimes, and arresting dealers is pointless.
Wouldn't it be better if users could be identified, and helped, at the point of purchase, before they commit crimes? Wouldn't it be better if users didn't have to interact with criminals, and criminals didn't get wealthy?
The above could be achieved by decriminalising all drugs and selling them in government-run shops. Unpalatable, yes, but pragmatic and helpful.
Those of us who don't take drugs don't need to be protected from them. Those who do take drugs don't care that they're illegal.
The current drug policies cause more harm than do the drugs themselves.
Chris Elias, Mission Bay.
Walking the talk
I couldn't help but be amused at the irony about the Brian Tamaki-organised protest (NZ Herald, July 25).
He is reported as saying "New Zealanders have lived so long in privilege and comfort" and that the people against him were arrogant and selfish, with no care for anything but "their money, pleasures and narcissist interrupted small lives".
This from a self-proclaimed Bishop who has formed his own Church, for goodness sake. A man who owns (or owned) a high-range Tesla and who tithes his congregation 10 per cent of their income.
Rather than organising protests, as a result of which many who can't afford it will be fined for being pedestrians on a motorway, he should put his tithing practice on hold until his parishioners are able to cope better with all the increased prices that are occurring.
Melanie Corbett, Westmere.
Freedom demands
I would wager some of Brian Tamaki's "self-entitled dickheads" he inconvenienced on the motorway would have been nurses and doctors on their way to the hospital or first responders to a mental health emergency
His attitude and language do not become a man of such "high standing" in a "church".
Does the attitude come from his congregation no longer able to pay the tithes to keep him in the luxury he has become accustomed to?
Maybe he should move to a place more in line with his expectations. China comes to mind
Ainsley Dermody, Invercargill.
