Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 3, Nos. 2 &3, 2004, Page 27
advancement of religion is a charitable purpose, provided this advancement is non-profit
and for the public benefit,3 which includes being non-political.4
Consequently, non-profit, non-political groups which advance religion for the public benefit
qualify for privileges afforded by governments in the UK and Australia to charitable
organisations, including tax-exempt status. In addition, religious groups which may not
qualify as religious charities may nevertheless benefit from concessions granted to religious
institutions as a separate category.5 Therefore, in the UK, places of worship are exempt
from local rates even if the religious institution involved is not a religious charity. In
Australia, religious institutions are granted tax exempt status along with religious charities,
although the range of benefits extended to religious institutions is less extensive than those
provided to religious charities.6
The Elusive Definition of Religion
Despite the importance of fiscal privileges afforded to religious groups, the definition of the
term religion itself is elusive some say impossible to define with any certainty.7 It may,
depending on the prevailing view, include moral or beneficial, immoral or harmful and
amoral groups. Furthermore, the definition might well include equivalent belief systems
and/or non-belief. There is no universally accepted judicial or statutory definition of religion.
The Western tendency is to incorporate a concept of supernatural into the definition. It
seems to be accepted as a rule of thumb among legal academic commentators that the UK
legal definition involves a deity or deities and worship (with the anomalous inclusion of
certain strands of Buddhism). The Australian definition generally applied involves
supernatural belief along with canons of conduct giving effect to that belief,8 ‗though canons
of conduct which offend against the ordinary laws are outside the area of immunity,
privilege or right conferred on grounds of religion‘.9 In the US, equivalent belief systems
playing the same role as religious beliefs have been granted legal religious status.
However, in India, religion has been defined as encompassing systems of belief conducive to
spiritual well being.10
Legal definitions thus encompass both substantive and functional definitions advanced by
sociologists.11 The landmark Indian case also lends support to the proposition that a
religion must ‗lay down a code of ethical rules for its followers to accept‘.12 It is arguable
that the second limb of the Australian test likewise requires ethical canons of conduct,
although it is likely that the generally accepted Australian position, at least at the
Commonwealth level, posits an ethically neutral definition of the word religion per se.
Although some scholars seek to differentiate between groups pejoratively characterised as
cults and those designated religion,13 there is no statutory or common law definition of the
word cult in the United Kingdom or Australia. Hence, because most groups described as
cults would also seem to fit the extant versions of the legal definition of religion,14 they
would, on the face of it, be entitled to those protections and privileges afforded to religions
generally.15
Public Policy Flexibility Under the Law of Charity
However, at least in the field of charity law, the requirements that an entity qualifying prima
facie as a religion must also advance (or promote) religion and must do so in the public
interest, means that some religious groups may not be entitled to receive fiscal benefits
provided to religious charities. In addition, also in the field of charity law, some religious
groups may fall foul of judicially determined public policy disqualifications, based on
overlapping notions of public morality and harmful conduct.
The process for admitting entities to charitable status does allow some judicial discretion (or
quasi-judicial in the case of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales), to separate
advancement of religion is a charitable purpose, provided this advancement is non-profit
and for the public benefit,3 which includes being non-political.4
Consequently, non-profit, non-political groups which advance religion for the public benefit
qualify for privileges afforded by governments in the UK and Australia to charitable
organisations, including tax-exempt status. In addition, religious groups which may not
qualify as religious charities may nevertheless benefit from concessions granted to religious
institutions as a separate category.5 Therefore, in the UK, places of worship are exempt
from local rates even if the religious institution involved is not a religious charity. In
Australia, religious institutions are granted tax exempt status along with religious charities,
although the range of benefits extended to religious institutions is less extensive than those
provided to religious charities.6
The Elusive Definition of Religion
Despite the importance of fiscal privileges afforded to religious groups, the definition of the
term religion itself is elusive some say impossible to define with any certainty.7 It may,
depending on the prevailing view, include moral or beneficial, immoral or harmful and
amoral groups. Furthermore, the definition might well include equivalent belief systems
and/or non-belief. There is no universally accepted judicial or statutory definition of religion.
The Western tendency is to incorporate a concept of supernatural into the definition. It
seems to be accepted as a rule of thumb among legal academic commentators that the UK
legal definition involves a deity or deities and worship (with the anomalous inclusion of
certain strands of Buddhism). The Australian definition generally applied involves
supernatural belief along with canons of conduct giving effect to that belief,8 ‗though canons
of conduct which offend against the ordinary laws are outside the area of immunity,
privilege or right conferred on grounds of religion‘.9 In the US, equivalent belief systems
playing the same role as religious beliefs have been granted legal religious status.
However, in India, religion has been defined as encompassing systems of belief conducive to
spiritual well being.10
Legal definitions thus encompass both substantive and functional definitions advanced by
sociologists.11 The landmark Indian case also lends support to the proposition that a
religion must ‗lay down a code of ethical rules for its followers to accept‘.12 It is arguable
that the second limb of the Australian test likewise requires ethical canons of conduct,
although it is likely that the generally accepted Australian position, at least at the
Commonwealth level, posits an ethically neutral definition of the word religion per se.
Although some scholars seek to differentiate between groups pejoratively characterised as
cults and those designated religion,13 there is no statutory or common law definition of the
word cult in the United Kingdom or Australia. Hence, because most groups described as
cults would also seem to fit the extant versions of the legal definition of religion,14 they
would, on the face of it, be entitled to those protections and privileges afforded to religions
generally.15
Public Policy Flexibility Under the Law of Charity
However, at least in the field of charity law, the requirements that an entity qualifying prima
facie as a religion must also advance (or promote) religion and must do so in the public
interest, means that some religious groups may not be entitled to receive fiscal benefits
provided to religious charities. In addition, also in the field of charity law, some religious
groups may fall foul of judicially determined public policy disqualifications, based on
overlapping notions of public morality and harmful conduct.
The process for admitting entities to charitable status does allow some judicial discretion (or
quasi-judicial in the case of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales), to separate
