Faith, hope and charity are Christian virtues. However blind faith, that defies reason and rejects evidence, is not a virtue. Hope is good, but misplaced hope can be a wasteful distraction. Charity is a virtue, but are religions necessarily always charitable?

Yes, according to Australian law. "The advancement of religion", along with the relief of poverty and the advancement of education, is one of the "heads of charity" in the legal definition of charity in Australia.

As a result of this definition, tax exemptions worth billions of dollars annually, are granted to all the activities of religious bodies, whether actually charitable or not. This includes even the commercial operations of religious enterprises. The Commonwealth government, is inquiring into the definition of charity, says it wants to modernise it.

"The advancement of religion" should be removed from the legal definition of charity. If religious charities assist the poor, they will still be deemed charitable. Religious charities should operate under the same rules as all other charities. It is not true that all the activities, of all religious groups, are always charitable.

The present legal definition of charity in Australia comes from precedents that date back to Queen Elizabeth I in 1601. Christianity in England is the established religion. In Australia today, however, we have a multiplicity of religions, while the adherence to religion in general is declining.

Because of sectarian conflict in Europe, Australia was founded on a secular ideal that was deliberately intended to break with the British tradition of established religion. It was for this reason that the Australian Constitution includes Section 116, which states that the "Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion ...".

Religious freedom should be preserved, but religions should be neither established nor advanced by the Commonwealth. That was the original intention of the Constitution.

Today, with religious diversity, the advancement of religion benefits select groups, rather than the community as a whole. In fact, the promotion of contradictory religious beliefs may increase division and disharmony in society. It can be more of a cost than a benefit. The advancement of religion may involve the advancement of Christianity, or of Judaism, or of Islam, or indeed any of sect, cult, superstition or religion, even Scientology.

The coercive behaviour of cults can cause severe distress, psychological trauma, and can disrupt the lives of families. It is not necessary to refer to acts of violence in the name of religion or the activities of paedophile priests in order to indicate that the activities of religious people are not always benign. This all takes place at the expense of the taxpayer.

Even "prayerful intervention for the public" is defined as charitable. There is no evidence that such activities are beneficial. In fact, a US heart disease study found that praying for people causes them distress and gives them worse outcomes.

It may be thought that religions are consoling, and thereby contribute to community well-being. Such psychological factors do not justify the range of concessions that result. Placebos may have a recognised medical benefit, but we do not include them in the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.

If we are to continue with the presumption that the advancement of religion is of itself charitable, then we need a legal definition of religion. Other countries are no help in this. In England and Wales, religion is a belief in a god, "more than one god, or no god". In Northern Ireland it may include "any analogous philosophical belief". In Australia, the High Court, in the 1983 Scientology case, decided that a religion involves a "belief in a Supernatural Being, Thing or Principle".

Anything that affects the natural world is, of itself, natural. "Supernatural" is beyond the natural and therefore beyond detection in the natural world. "Principle" is an abstract noun, which of itself cannot be measured. A "supernatural principle", then, is the intersection of the immeasurable with the undetectable. Should our laws be based on this?

Apart from these issues, it is relevant to point out that none of the definitions of religion require a possibility that any of the esteemed beliefs could actually be true. Yet providing evidence regarding the truth of assertions is normally regarded as being an important part of the legal process.

In the case of religion, however, there is a convenient presumption that any religion could be true, even though all religions are largely mutually contradictory, thereby precluding the possibility of truth in all but possibly one case. The perverseness of this logic alone should be sufficient to disqualify religion from the definition of charity.

Finally, the advancement of religion is has little to do with the provision of morality. Universal ethical principles such as compassion, honesty, freedom and justice provide a basis for morality that is independent of any religion. It is time that reason and evidence, as applied to what is measurably beneficial and tangible, should form the basis of the definition of charity.

John L Perkins is an economist and secular activist.
This article was published in Australian Humanist, No. 105, Autumn 2012.