- + Tracy Barret voted on the debate Prostitution should be legalised to protect sex workers from HIV/AIDS
- + Ll Blynch edited the debate Are London Underground staff justified in their strike action?
- + Arnavnarian voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Golmindalin joined Debatewise
- + Arnavnarian joined Debatewise
- + Arnavnarian voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Plally7 edited the debate Will mankind make it to the next century?
- + Explonential joined Central London Debating Society
- + Arnavnarian voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Arnavnarian voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
RELIGIONS SHOULD NOT QUALIFY AS CHARITIES
Currently in both the US and Britain churches and other religious organisations qualify for charitable status. Why?
Religions should not qualify as charities
Yes, because... What benefit do churches or religious organisations really provide?
An organisation is set up which dupes people into giving it money, persuades them of various extremely dubious and unscientific premises about the world, and you therefore give it a tax break. Something about that situation seems wrong to me.
Religions and religious organisations do considerable charity work. Plus, they have a generally beneficial effect on society: why not assist that?
Vote on this point: What benefit do churches or religious organisations really provide?
See history of changes to this point
Religions should not qualify as charities
Yes, because... The money could be spent elsewhere
Admittedly some religions do undertake charitable work. However they inevitably also waste at least some of their money on 'glorifying' a being/beings who is/are supposedly omnipotent and therefore quite capable of 'glorifying' himself/themselves. Why not spend it on charities, schools or hospitals which are far more likely to spend 100% of the money on something more useful than cassocks.
See history of changes to this point
Vote on this debate: Religions should not qualify as charities
Modified:
09 Jan 2010
Point 1. What benefit do churches or religious organisations really provide?
An organisation is set up which dupes people into giving it money, persuades them of various extremely dubious and unscientific premises about the world, and you therefore give it a tax break. Something about that situation seems wrong to me.
Religions and religious organisations do considerable charity work. Plus, they have a generally beneficial effect on society: why not assist that?
Point 2. The money could be spent elsewhere
Admittedly some religions do undertake charitable work. However they inevitably also waste at least some of their money on 'glorifying' a being/beings who is/are supposedly omnipotent and therefore quite capable of 'glorifying' himself/themselves. Why not spend it on charities, schools or hospitals which are far more likely to spend 100% of the money on something more useful than cassocks.