The Instigator
Keliena
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
supercanuck
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Churches should 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 3 votes the winner is...
Keliena
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/23/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 361 times Debate No: 81445
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)

 

Keliena

Pro

Religious organizations within our nation should be taxed just as any other businesses and individuals are taxed. The Us Constitution of the United States of America clearly was written to eliminate the granting and to eradicate any possibility of religious powerhouses, and any theocratic influences to be held over the interest and over the values of America and its people. The constitution was written as one nation, under god; so that the government would not grant religions extra privileges.
Debate Round No. 1
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Jonbonbon 1 year ago
Jonbonbon
I was talking to Peepette in that last comment.
Posted by Jonbonbon 1 year ago
Jonbonbon
Your position is kind of unfounded. What makes you think that all churches use their money to expand their lifestyles? Most churches barely make enough money to get by. Especially, the churches in low income or rural areas. I mean, you claim they don't do anything to further their cause, but what is their cause? Their cause is a religious one, and to use the money to expand their building (which almost all churches do once they've made enough money) is something you say they should do. Plus, they're non-profit because their money relies on donations. Churches rarely buy merchandise in order to resell it, and when they do, it's usually because they don't make enough money on donations. I think you need to explain why donations should be taxed, because generalizing your opinions about the churches isn't sufficient reason to tax donations on all churches.
Posted by BlackFlags 1 year ago
BlackFlags
Many atheists want to tax churches, while almost every Christian does not. Seems like a bunch of nobodies in power want to continue controlling and regulating society.

The only good thing governments have ever spent serious money on is the military. Which throughout history has also commonly been used to oppress us.
Posted by Peepette 1 year ago
Peepette
There need to be a reclassification of non-profit institutions. Many non-profits spend toward advancing their causes or professions; unions, agricultural organizations, business, trade associations, social clubs, as well as religious organizations and private colleges. The issue at hand is expenditures made toward promoting each organization's mission and what is called administration cost and asset holdings. In the case of some mega churches, where percentage of administration costs greatly outweigh charitable works or promotion of the faith. Administration cost defined as excessive salaries, acquisition of assets such as jets, mansions; as well as cost of fund raising against donations distributed. Tax codes need to be changed to define what a non-profit is by establishing a percentage of expenditures toward the aim of the organization and define categories of administration costs. A non-profit should be able to update or expand it's equipment and office space and such, but not used to purchase luxury items or support lavish lifestyles.
Posted by Jonbonbon 1 year ago
Jonbonbon
Actually churches are classified as non-profit organizations because they run on donations. You'd have to start taxing all non-profit organizations, which would involve things like taxing the income of a charity that gives money to cancer research or things of the sort.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
KelienasupercanuckTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con doesn't address Pro's argument nor actually makes one.
Vote Placed by Matt532 1 year ago
Matt532
KelienasupercanuckTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Shocking how Con threw away such a great advantage. I disagree with Pro's last line, that the government is granting religions extra privileges, but that it grants these privileges to non-profits in general. One of the Founders said that "The power to tax is the power to destroy." I also don't know what Pro means by religious powerhouses, as the USA was meant for the people to be in charge, and the Churchgoers in general spend more time in Church than in politics.
Vote Placed by Jonbonbon 1 year ago
Jonbonbon
KelienasupercanuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: No matter how bad I think pro's arguments are, con literally just provided the response "no." Because pro actually made an attempt to provide an argument, arguments point to pro.