On the “one hand”
Part of the reason, that religious groups here in NZ are being actually allowed to be able to claim charity status, for themselves and their own groups, is due to the idea that these group are then also involved in “helping to further do Gods work for God” . Which evidently will occur whenever people would begin getting actively involved in a religious fellowship by sharing and spreading the Bible and Quran and so on etc
Surely that suggest that members are therefore actively been still employed in this line of charity work (employment)
Therefore Islamist in Christchurch, should therefore also still be said to be, also actively involved in doing part of Gods work as well, in their own way too
They were therefore “at their employers workplace” at the very time when they were set upon, and were attacked by a gunman
They are actively involved in doing a line of work, for God (so happen to be a line of unpaid charity work)
BUT THEN on the “other hand”, seem government bureaucracy, when moment suddenly suits them will far rather to now try and find a way in which to completely wiggle their way out of any responsibility, for ACC cover of GOD’S EMPLOYEE’S health and safety situations ,within all of Gods workplace premises . https://thespinoff.co.nz/society/14-05-2019/why-acc-is-turning-away-traumatised-mosque-survivors/
Same similar way like they also do,too, when faced by ex cult members dealing with issues of brain injury caused through trauma and so on as well too, all of which were caused unto them, within a certain type workplace of what’s being purposely run by God (God is like the top big boss of a large global type workplace network,working within the business line of work of saving souls)
This being like, Gods business premises
Suddenly not interested in accepting, that the groups activities they were involved in there at the mosque, is considered to be as like being happening at a “place of work”
Suddenly its not ? (IE: even if said place might have already claimed charity status, under the pretence that it is supposed to be)
God is evidently able to be BOTH running a business for himself (what then even claims charity status on top of as well to boot), all of what then still wont ever need to be classed as being for any type of business purposes, at all ,as soon as crunch time arrive (such as whenever it happen to suit certain powers that be. IE: both bases have been covered, in one strike)
And yet . Its also STILL said to be for purpose of furthering the work of God (which of course can thus also help explain why its also been allocated charity status too?)
Talk about a bloody sneaky flip flop situation ? (retaining a ball in both courts type fraudulent situation)
The whole rig ma role set up seems, dodgy as
Are religious groups ACTUALLY BEEN set up for an act of either furthering Gods Work ? .
Which way is it ? (ie: lets not bother to beat around the bush)
If not, then the next question would then need to be asked, about why the hell have some still been able to be claiming charity status then? (as evidently it was often said to be having something to do with furthering work of God)
So surely they cannot claim it to be both ways ?
If so (if it be for furthering work of God) . Then so be it . But THEN workplaces should all STILL be considered to come under the protection of ACC
Its only fair on citizen? (that government would be held responsible to help look after human health and safety within workplaces)
Its to do with government responsibility, in regard of caring for citizen health?
Government should be held responsible for workmen health and safety (Even when its to do with, doing Gods work, within buildings what amount to ALL being a part of Gods business workpremises)
Why are people employed by God ,to help further do Gods work, in action while employed within Gods workplace
Then not also covered under ACC health and safety workplace rule ?
Perhaps because our government are also too aware of how much EXTRA its then going to cost ACC to cover the cost of the extent of harm done (within Gods workplace)
Or what ?