Abolish Chancel Repair Liability

jings, nope

I did specify old churches (buildings) of no intrinsic historical or architectural value. You can add social value to that if you like.

We used to do archery in an old church (Church of Scotland, I think but it's not important). It has been renovated and restored with lottery grants and fund-raising by the people who use it now: the Scout Association. They've built a climbing wall, set up an archery range, have rooms for karate and dancing classes, etc, etc. It's a community resource and the community pays for it.

It's an ugly building so if the community didn't need it then, yes, I'd let it rot.

Henry 8 said local rectors should be responsible for the churches. So some of the vicars flogged them off. The ones that did n't put the onus on the parish. It only applies to the chancellor. The rest of it must depend on cake stalls.

Chancel. Not the bloody chancellor!

Good for English Heritage. That is the sort of organisation that should be paying for ancient church chancel repairs, not your everyday, ordinary houseowner.

You think that couple who had a farm left to them are "ordinary homeowners"?

Have you been in an English village lately? Not many of the old occupants left. #highspeedtrainstolondon

thatbags I can't imagine why you think all taxpayers pay for the restoration and upkeep of churches! It's a common misconception and it is one explanation for the very small amounts visitors and people who have been to a christening or special service often put in the plate or box. Churches are often big building with high ceilings and cost a fortune in heating and lighting, ditto to repair holes in roofs, upkeep of churchyards, organ repairs and so on. Most churches and other buildings designed for worship are kept going by the people who attend regularly and by continual fund-raising. No taxes involved!

Religion apart, I think old churches are of great historical and architectural value and do not think they should be allowed to 'rot'. We often visit them (although attend our own infrequently) for those reasons alone. They should receive special treatment because they are probably the oldest buildings, along with castles, in our land.

I do not think local householders should be responsible for their upkeep, however; the Church has squandered enough money on bad investments over the years but is still fairly wealthy. If there is lottery funding via English Heritage available that is a good thing to preserve our history.

Yes I agree. I often wonder what will happen to all the old churches. Our village church has a congregation of about 9!I fear there are rather to many in the same position to preserve as places of worship.

And they are so expensive to maintain that turning them into community centres is not really viable either.

Why would you not sign a petition that is trying to abolish an ancient law that is grossly unfair to those who happen to live near churches Lily? Are you happy to see people bankrupted just because they happen to live near a church? Or to have insurance companies raking in money on the back of this? It is wholly iniquitous.

We make voluntary contributions to our local church in many ways - even though we are not practising christians.

We live next door to a beautiful old Knights Templar church and support it as we are able. Mind you the history of the Knights Templar does not bear too close scrutiny! - but we will draw a veil over that. The building is simple and carries with it a great deal of history.

Whilst I am happy to donate to its upkeep, I am not at all happy at the idea that we could be stung for hundreds of thousands of pounds for a building that essentially is not ours, is not on our land and has nothing whatever to do with us.

I believe that the date for the diocese to register properties as liable has passed now; so only those properties that have been registered will be affected.

Mishap because I suspect the motives of the people behind that petition.

I beg your pardon, then, lily. Am I to understand that British taxpayers pay nothing towards the upkeep of famous buildings like St Pauls or, say, the Liverpool catherdrals? If so, then I apologise for my ignorance.

Perhaps I should have said tourists?

How can you suspect the motives of fairness to all?

Why should a muslim or a hindu or an atheist pay for CofE churches?

Do CofE people pay for mosques or synagogues?

lily said: "Most churches and other buildings designed for worship are kept going by the people who attend regularly and by continual fund-raising"

Good. That's how it should be. I don't see any reason why anyone else should pay to keep a church going, except for the reasons I have already outlined, namely that it is important for reasons other than religious ones as well.

And that's really all the petition is about.

It is an outdated law, I agree. And I did not suggest that the upkeep of places of worship should be anybody's responsibility other than the worshippers' I believe. But I think the Secular Society has embraced this issue as another opportunity to bash religion, especially Christianity. As usual.

The National Secular Society does not exist to bash religion. It exists to try and make laws apply equally to everyone whether they are religious or not. It is certainly opposed to religious privilege (exceptions to the rules that apply to everyone else just because of religion), but not opposed to religion per se. Many religious people are secularists too because they understand this. I'm sorry that you don't appear to understand it, lily, and I'm sorry that you feel the NSS is a religion-bashing machine. Your view of the NSS is mistaken.

Unfortunately under the Chancel Tax laws, the upkeep of churches becomes exactly that: the responsibility of people other than worshipers.

I might probably could take issue with some of the aims of the NSS (I do not know this organisation particularly and am not a natural "joiner") but this is a clear case of total unfairness and I am happy to sign. In the same way I would be happy to sign a church petition in aid of something that I agreed strongly with.

Lily - if you think that the chancel tax is wrong, then you can sign the petition without signing up to the whole deal from the NSS - or you could write to your MP and ask her/him to vote in favour. But sitting on the fence when people's livelihoods can be wrecked in the name of your church is not an option I feel. It is not a very good example of loving one's neighbour.

I have lobbied but not through the NSS. A lot of church members think this law is now unfair because the people who own the land no longer collect rents out of which to pay - how it used to work. There is only one case I have come across where any attempt has been made to enforce it and I think that was to test it. Sorry, * bags* but I think that's exactly what it does in the interests of 'equality'.

I agree - all the church members I know are appalled at the idea that people should be put at risk by this law.

I'm just saying that I do not think that signing this petition signs you up to the whole deal.

a full explanation here

NSS is not anti-religon, it's anti-unfairness caused by some expectations of some religious people. If you can't see that then you're not understanding properly. If it was anti-religion, no religious person would also be a supporter of secularism, and plenty are. Logic.

It bloody is.

anti religion