The Instigator
Ratio_Mentat
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Duncan
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Churches Ought not be Taxed

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Duncan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/21/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 802 times Debate No: 37982
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

Ratio_Mentat

Pro

Assuming that it's true that Being a Church implies that classified as serving the General Welfare & classified as serving the General Welfare implies that Ought not be Taxed, then it's true that Being a Church implies that Ought not be Taxed.

Being a Church implies that classified as serving the General Welfare; Classified as serving the General Welfare implies that Ought not to be Taxed. Necessarily, Being a Church implies that Ought not to be Taxed.

IRS lists Churches as serving the General Welfare. Either serving the General Welfare or Ought to be Taxed. If not serving General Welfare implies Ought to be Taxed. If Ought not to be Taxed implies serving the General Welfare. If Ought not to be Taxed implies Being a Church.
Duncan

Con

I had to put this into Google Translate. You are saying that assuming churches serve the general welfare of the population, and the IRS lists churches as serving the welfare of the population, then they should not be taxed. This is based on assumptions which I will now tackle.

Churches claim to offer some benefit towards the welfare of the population, but most churches, specifically the Catholic Church, run like a business. They have outlets in every country, they provide advice, morality and salvation to their customers and even have competition from other religious businesses. These religions often require tithes from their members, which provides income for the church. Religions are business as much as any other corporation.

Next up, there are clear benefits to taxing the church. If we were to tax the churches, we would make 71,000,000,000 Dollars annually, and that's only in America.

http://taxthechurches.org...
http://churchesandtaxes.procon.org...

Churches make more than most businesses on the planet, and yet are able to use the claim that they benefit the welfare of the people to remain tax exempt. Saying "if the law says it's right, then it must be right, this is legal, so it too, must be right" doesn't cut it. Anything that claims to "benefit the welfare of the people should then be exempt;" doctors, civil servants, anyone who helps others. This only means that the laws need to be changed. Your move,

Duncan.
Debate Round No. 1
Ratio_Mentat

Pro

Ratio_Mentat forfeited this round.
Duncan

Con

Perhaps my opponent has merely forgotten to reply. I will check the comments section should he place his rebuttal there.
Debate Round No. 2
Ratio_Mentat

Pro

Ratio_Mentat forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Sitara 4 years ago
Sitara
You are a naughty Christian. Jesus and Paul both said to pay taxes, now stop whining.
Posted by Projectid 4 years ago
Projectid
The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

I'm pretty sure that this does not say that we cannot tax churches.
Posted by Ratio_Mentat 4 years ago
Ratio_Mentat
Jon_Day, there is no presupposition that all churches serve the general welfare. They are already listed by the IRS that they do, which is also covered by the First Amendment. The Constitution, and thus protections guaranteed in it, serve the General Welfare. Thus, First amendment serves the General Welfare. The only fair way to reach your position, it would appear, is to get rid of the First Amendment.
Posted by Jon_Day 4 years ago
Jon_Day
I don't think it makes for a fair argument, to force the presupposition that churches do in fact serve the "general welfare". It seems the argument should be whether or not a church should be classified as an organization which serves the "general welfare", and thus whether or not it should receive tax exempt status. If one were able to conclude that a church does not in fact serve the general welfare, the question of whether or not it is worthy of tax exempt status would be dealt with automatically. In my opinion it is the case that not all churches operate as services to the general welfare, and thus the automatic inclusion of all churches in the tax exempt classification would be a fallacious policy.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by retroman000 4 years ago
retroman000
Ratio_MentatDuncanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited all but the opening round, and as such this doesn't much constitute a debate on his behalf.
Vote Placed by Projectid 4 years ago
Projectid
Ratio_MentatDuncanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: The Pro forfeited, so conduct goes to Con. The Pro also had some grammatical issues, whereas I did not find any with Con. Without a doubt the Con made more convincing arguments, especially with the false notion of churches being for the welfare of the people. The Con deserves points for sources because he used them, whereas the Pro did not. It's unfortunate that the Pro forfeited, it would have been an interesting debate.