> If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
It seems perfectly possible to me to be curious about worship music, and specifically how Hillsong got to be such a 900 pound gorilla in the field.
Speaking as a Christian who has very mixed feelings about Hillsong, I certainly am.
That said, the article had little substance, in my view. It recounted the church's history but didn't really touch on why they're so influential, which is really what I'm curious about.
tl;dr: Christian organization scams tax payers, recent conservative trends on Hacker News somehow makes this interesting?
I don’t think this is interesting because any conservative trend. It’s a cool business hack that allows you to make money without taxes.
By this logic, it's a cool business hack to run a megachurch and buy your own 737 without paying taxes, not a scam?
Moreover:
1) Hillsong runs substantially on donations and purchases of their merchandise (including music). Most of the people who give or buy their merchandise are taxpayers themselves.
2) Anyone paid as an employee by Hillsong will pay taxes, just like everyone else. I don't know much about the lifestyles of their senior employees/leaders - maybe it's a televangelist-style Gulfstream-and-champagne-fest, maybe not.
3) We know Hillsong earn a lot of money but we don't know that they keep very much of it[1]. If they're anything like HTB, they quite likely don't[2]: the vast majority will be spent on staffing, ministry, along with a chunk given to support other organisations and causes. Ministry means everything from what you see on a Sunday and special events through to social initiatives such as food banks, homeless shelters, childrens' work, soup kitchens, and educational initiatives (and more) that many churches either support or run.
Point (3) is important because it's the point that makes a church a net good within society (or not, in the absence of it). If they're not a net good then I'd be more inclined to agree that, yes, they should be taxed as businesses rather than not taxed as though they're charities. Quantifying that is obviously non-trivial.
[1] It's possible they do but I don't have any information to hand on this.
[2] At a pure numbers level this is something that distinguishes a charity from a (healthy) business: one does not generate a profit (which is not to say the money shouldn't be used carefully and beneficially: clearly it should), whilst the other does.
Sadly, if this article is accurate, it may be closer to the above than I'd thought: https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/taxpayers-support-lavish-h...
They aren’t scammers, though, because most people want this. Of course it is unfair to you, but most countries have their laws originate in their dominant religious culture and consequently favour that culture.
For instance, the San Francisco MTA legalized parking along the median on the street for church services. It’s just the way that people want it to be, and in democracies, they will inevitably get their way so it’s best to take advantage of the laws they make. Being upset is less profitable than playing the game.
What do your tax dollars pay for in regards to Planned Parenthood? Things that Medicare should be paying for, but fails at, specifically, reproductive care for women, including obstetrics, which should go well with your pro-birth agenda (I'm not going to dignify it with the phrase "pro-life" because once the baby comes out, the "pro-lifers" seem to run for cover)
Meanwhile, when it comes to giving my tax dollars as welfare to your religion, your conservative agenda infringes upon my constitutional rights established under the 1st amendment to our constitution (in case of the USA).