| |
Tithes and discrimination - a 21st century scandal
|
Following the Norman invasion of 1066 almost all of the land in England and Wales was stolen from its existing owners and assigned to the king who handed it out in the form of large estates to those who had taken part in the invasion, his friends and his supporters. Over the centuries most land was handed out this way but the crown still retains millions of acres (Prince Charles' Duchy of Cornwall for example) which are exempt from many of the laws that apply to the rest of us.
The new Lords of the Manor had no intention of working the land, or of doing any work at all, so they levied taxes on the peasants who worked the land as tenants. These taxes took the form of labour time which had to be spent on the Lord's private land, a share of the produce from peasant land or, later, cash in the form of rents. Over the centuries some estates have been broken up, others have expanded through amalgamation and marriage. In rural Britain this relationship between landowner and tenant still exists and forms the backbone of the British class system.
It is worth remembering when visiting National Trust property that all the country houses for which Britain is so famous were not built by the efforts of land owners, they were built from the payment of rent by those who worked the land as tenants. Chatsworth was not built by the Dukes of Devonshire, it was built with cash from tenant farmers and the labour of miners who worked on the estate. How did the ancestors of the Dukes of Devonshire originally acquire the Chatsworth Estate? One guess.
| |
As well as supporting the lifestyle of the Lord of the Manor, his family and his retinue, working people were forced, under threat of imprisonment or death, to pay a tax, a "tithe", for the upkeep of the local church and its rector. The rector was often the second or third son of the Lord of the Manor and, in most cases, he had his own lifestyle aspirations and no wish to carry out the work of the church - so he appointed a vicar to do the job for him. Tithes were in the form of labour (on church land) or a proportion of goods produced (usually 10% or more.) The size of tithe barns in many parts of England today testify to the amount of goods the church acquired in this way. Again, over the years, tithes ceased to be paid in goods and were converted to cash.
Tithes had to be paid by everyone, Christians, non-Christians and non-believers - there was no exemption from tithes.
The Tithe Acts of 1836 and 1936 put an end to many tithes and almost all the remainder went with the Finance Act of 1977. One remnant of tithing still remains in the form of "chancel repair liability" which forces some home owners to pay for the maintenance of local church buildings - hundreds of thousands of pounds sometimes. A few companies make a great deal of money by providing insurance to rural home owners against the possibility of chancel repair liability. In the 19th century the Church of England refused to free its slaves until it was provided with financial compensation by taxpayers, it is currently refusing to give up its right to chancel repair liability until it receives compensation from taxpayers.
|
Good work done with tithe income
|
In many cases income from tithes was used for good things - particularly education in rural Britain where in almost all parishes the church funded a school which taught the Christian religion (there was no learning about other beliefs in those days), which encouraged children to read using the Bible and which taught basic arithmetic. By the 19th century almost all rural education, and some in the growing towns and cities, was in the hands of the church.
The rapid expansion of population, the growth of industrial cities and the reduction of its tithe income, meant that the church could no longer afford to fund its schools. The quality of education declined until finally the church and the state had to come to an arrangement where funding would be provided by taxpayers.
| |
At the time of this hand over the church was insistent that it should retain the right to dictate the syllabus as far as religious teaching was concerned.
Where it could afford a small amount for the upkeep of the school buildings it opted for "voluntary aided" status - taxpayers provided the running costs but the church determined who was employed as teachers, what was taught and which families were eligible to send their children to the school.
Where the church could not afford to maintain the buildings it opted for "voluntary controlled" status where the ultimate control rested with taxpayers in the form of the Local Authority - though the church still had a say in the curriculum, who was employed and who was eligible to attend.
|
Modern tithes paid by us all
|
The church has found new tithes to subsidise its proselytising.
- In 2011/12 approximately 15% of income tax goes to education.
- In 2011/12 approximately 15% of VAT goes to education.
- In 2011/12 approximately 24% of council tax goes to education.
- In Derbyshire about one third of all schools are religious schools.
- 100% of the funding for religious schools comes from taxpayers.
So, without our consent, religious schools are being subsidised by:
- 5% of our personal annual tax bill,
- 8% of our personal council tax bill,
- 5% of the VAT we pay.
Non-believers are forced, under threat of imprisonment, to pay for religious schools.
Bad enough in the 16th century, unacceptable in the 21st!
|
|
Religious schools may openly and legally discriminate
- Religious schools may refuse to employ non-religious staff: teachers, cleaners, caretakers, dinner ladies.
- Religious schools may refuse to enroll a child whose parents have non-religious beliefs.
- As non-believers we are forced (under threat of imprisonment) to pay for schools which discriminate against us - in 2011!
- In the past they threatened us with imprisonment or death for not following their religion.
- Today they take our money to pay for their schools and then discriminate against us.
- Are we mad, passive or just plain stupid?
Is this fair?
Of course it is not fair - why should those of us with no religious beliefs pay for parents to have their children educated in religious schools?
We believe that children from all backgrounds should be educated together so that can learn with one another and from one another. (See here.)
The proportion of taxation used to fund religious "academies" and "free" schools will increase over the next few years.
Why should we pay for schools which are legally allowed to discriminate against people like us - people who are paying their bills?
Could we refuse to pay?
We could try. Of course, we will be threatened with imprisonment if we do.
Maybe the National Secular Society or the British Humanist Association would like to set it up.
Do all religious schools discriminate?
No, but they have the right to discriminate if they wish.
Some may be fairly "liberal" and have broad criteria for selecting pupils - but they have rights that are denied to non-religious schools.
Increasing numbers are outside democratic local authority control - with no taxpayer representation on boards of governors.
Those who want to impose a narrow religious education on their children should pay for it - not force us to subsidise their beliefs.
Religions should be free to stand on their own two feet - not be dependent in handouts from us.
Tithing has not gone away - it is just as overt today as it was 300 years ago - but now religious groups have their hands on our tax money.
|
|
