The Instigator
iqpiblog
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Emilrose
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

religious and ethnic charities should be discouraged and not be eligible for tax relief

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...
Emilrose
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/21/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 789 times Debate No: 67406
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

iqpiblog

Pro

religious charities serve the purpose to provide charity to the needy within their own religious communities.

we live in a secular society in which we strive to ensure that all citizens possess the same rights and obligations as each other, irrelevant of religion race standing etc

our government has a duty to uphold this secularism in the interest of maintaining a fair society.

our govt can certainly not support organisations such as religions whose interests serve only divided segments of our citizens.

if a religious organisation wants to organise charitable collections, then they must be audited to ensure that the benefit of the charity goes to a wide spectrum of a nations/communities' people and certainly not distributed as loyalty/reward points to a private members' club.
Emilrose

Con

Debate accepted.

Pro asserts that because we live in "secular society", religious and ethnic charities should not be supported. Firstly, it's because we live (although, naturally this doesn't apply to every country) in a secular society that groups representing minorities should have the freedom to exist. Pro then implies that religious and ethnic charities somehow undermine citizens possessing the same rights, however, the standing of religious and ethnic charities has absolutely no effect on the rights of other citizens within the community. Rather such charities do not seek to infringe the rights of others but to protect and promote the rights of the people belonging to that charity. Pro exclusively singles out religious and ethnic charities and fails to recognize the fact that all charities, whether religious or non-religious, ethnic or non-ethnic, support a specific cause. Does this mean that the rights of people not affiliated with this cause are violated? Naturally, the answer is no.

Alluding to Pros assertion that:"religious charities serve the purpose to provide charity to the needy within their own religious communities."

The fact is that all charities serve the purpose of providing assistance to the needy and those who fit the interests of that charity--each one represents different causes, and different minorities. Once more all emphasis is placed on religious and ethnic charity only.

"If a religious organisation wants to organise charitable collections, then they must be audited to ensure that the benefit of the charity goes to a wide spectrum of a nations/communities' people and certainly not distributed as loyalty/reward points to a private members' club."

If religious organizations were to ensure that all collections go towards a "wide spectrum" of nations/communities, the purpose of the said charity would of course be contradicted. More importantly, the legality of such a scheme is also questionable, particularly if the religious charity is non-consenting. One could also use the same argument that non-religious charities specializing in areas of poverty, homelessness, various forms abuse protection, financial assistance services, and so on also apply to be audited to ensure that its funds go towards other minorities in need. In terms of practicality, the funding that could be expended on each cause would be extremely limited and therefore very little benefit would be received.

Concerning the resolution, I'd also like to highlight to Pro that all charities (religious or otherwise) are eligible for tax relief providing that the money and financial contributions be used for the charity and its causes. My own case can be made on the fact that religious and ethnic charities are legally within rights to operate and support the individuals being represented through them. A U.K Government Article states:

[1.1] "Charities may claim exemption from tax on most forms of income and capital gains, if they’re applied to charitable purposes."

[1.2] "Once a body has been accepted as being a charity for tax purposes, it normally retains its charitable status until such time as it ceases to exist either in its original form or altogether."

Why exactly should religious or ethnic charities be exempt? Any "fair society" would allow the existence of such charities providing they adhere and cooperate fully with law.

In addition, not all religious charities do only support people exclusively belonging to them. Christian organizations for example have consistently offered voluntary and financial support to those in Africa and other impoverished countries. Religious people are in fact heavily encouraged to give and provide contribution to those in need. Judaism also remains as one the largest providers, with large percentages of the Jewish community in the U.S donating to charity; many of which are actually non-Jewish.

[1.] http://download.pwc.com...

[2.] https://www.gov.uk...

[3.] http://philanthropy.com...
Debate Round No. 1
iqpiblog

Pro

Minority groups indeed should have the freedoms to exist. But this freedom does not include the state"s support of any of their beliefs or activities which directly conflict with that state"s own fundamental principles.

We have chosen secularism in modern society over religious governance, because modern society has accepted the reality that religion conflicts with our education system, and it interferes with equality, and it reinforces segregation within larger society, and ultimately stands in the way of social integration.

Any charity that seeks to promote a viewpoint that conflicts with the state"s own aims and responsibilities is using up resources that could be utilised by charities that actively promote the goals of the state.

The goal of the state is to ensure that every person has a community of friends and social circles that educate them to see beyond the illogical and divisive proponents that religious organisations reinforce.

If a tax relief is to be given then it should be given to community integration organisations.

If such tax relief capital is withheld from religious charities, then this would send the right message out to its citizens in making it clear that it is wrong to differentiate between a fellow human/citizen on the basis of their religion/colour/creed etc..

A charity that supports a specific cause such as disability or lifeboats etc do not have the hugely detrimental societal mistrust that religious education and religious segregation does.

The underlying point in my proposition is that it is illogical for the state to provide financial support for organisations that are fundamentally (albeit more often now well disguised) causing a hindrance to the state"s aim of a equal opportunity and unified integrated society.

The state has to actively reform the powers that keep society so divided.

To clarify my point lets use an imaginary religion called "truegodianityislajudabudiism"

If this organisation benefits financially from the state, and then builds exclusive prayerhouses, schools, sports centres, scholarships etc that exclusively benefits members of that particular faith.
Surely the state"s primary duty is to provide improvements that benefit society indiscriminately, and not to benefit communities who arrogantly and harmfully remain detached from wider society.

The state unequivocally should not provide financial assistance to religious charities who would refuse to allow for eg transgendered, Eskimo, mentally retarded, aids sufferers etc people to benefit from their resources whereas all of the above are supposed to have equality of resources/opportunities according to our states" core belief irrelevant of whether or not they won the lottery of being born into a "truegod"ism" community.

I look forward to hearing your next discussion points""".
Emilrose

Con

Rebuttals

"Minority groups indeed should have the freedoms to exist. But this freedom does not include the state"s support of any of their beliefs or activities which directly conflict with that state"s own fundamental principles."

Pro admits that minority groups, or at least groups representing minorities should have the freedom to exist but then claims that this should not include the state's support as the beliefs and activities of that group/organization somehow conflict with the principles of the state. As highlighted in round one, all charities are legally entitled to tax relief providing that money is spent on the charity, there is no valid reason why religious or ethnic charities should be exempt from this. If a law preventing such charities from tax relief eligibility was to be put in place, naturally it would be the "rights" of the organization that are violated. I'd also like to inquire how religious charities "directly conflict" with the democratic principles and values of a state/country. The purpose of these charities is not impose religious belief but, as with any charity, to assist those in need.

"We have chosen secularism in modern society over religious governance, because modern society has accepted the reality that religion conflicts with our education system, and it interferes with equality, and it reinforces segregation within larger society, and ultimately stands in the way of social integration.

Again, the standing of religious and ethnic charities does not violate secularism. You claim religious charities interfere with equality and reinforce segregation within a larger society, yet no evidence in support. As previously stated, the aim of religious charities is not to undermine equality or reinforce segregation but quite simply to offer charitable help. I also pointed in round two that this help does not exclusively go on those within the religion or ethnic group but in many cases go towards numerous national groups and minorities. The emphasis is not necessarily placed on who is part of that religion but who is most in need.

"Any charity that seeks to promote a viewpoint that conflicts with the state"s own aims and responsibilities is using up resources that could be utilised by charities that actively promote the goals of the state."

My second answer pretty much applies to this one. Using the example of prominent charity "Christian Aid", one of which that operates all around the world assisting those in impoverished areas. Is this charity somehow conflicting with the states aims and responsibilities? The fact is that this charity and others do not actively seek to promote a viewpoint--rather the prioritization is the "charity". Christian Aid is currently asking providing help for those in Iraq, Syria, South Sudan, India, the Philippines, Sierra Leone, etc.

The goal of the state is to ensure that every person has a community of friends and social circles that educate them to see beyond the illogical and divisive proponents that religious organisations reinforce.

Technically,the goal of a state is to ensure that it is well-governed. Rather it seems that you think this should be a paramount goal. It is also your own assertion that religious groups reinforce illogical and divisive proponents--again, this is not an aim. Likewise religious charities do not prevent people from involving themselves in the wider community, particularly if the said religious charity specializes is different areas of charitable assistance.

"If a tax relief is to be given then it should be given to community integration organisations."

Every charity is entitled to tax relief.

"If such tax relief capital is withheld from religious charities, then this would send the right message out to its citizens in making it clear that it is wrong to differentiate between a fellow human/citizen on the basis of their religion/colour/creed etc.."

If tax relief was withheld from religious charities (as demonstrated) it would be a violation of law. I have also fully emphasised that religious charities do not differentiate or separate fellow human beings on the basis of their religion/color/creed.

A charity that supports a specific cause such as disability or lifeboats etc do not have the hugely detrimental societal mistrust that religious education and religious segregation does.

How exactly does one distinguish here? If a charity supporting a specific cause such as disability is entitled to tax relief then a religious charity that also has specific causes should also be eligible. Likewise, religious charities are not based on religious education or religious segregation.

"If this organisation benefits financially from the state, and then builds exclusive prayerhouses, schools, sports centres, scholarships etc that exclusively benefits members of that particular faith.
Surely the state"s primary duty is to provide improvements that benefit society indiscriminately, and not to benefit communities who arrogantly and harmfully remain detached from wider society."

As long as donations and financial contribution is spent on charitable causes--religious charities are absolutely entitled to establish their own sports centres, schools, etc. Legally these are considered "good works" as they are of benefit to people. On the contrary to "arrogantly" and "harmfully" detaching themselves from wider society, these charities are bringing people together. Pro misunderstands again that not all donations exclusively go on people in that religion, even smaller religious charities contribute to other causes.

"The state unequivocally should not provide financial assistance to religious charities who would refuse to allow for eg transgendered, Eskimo, mentally retarded, aids sufferers etc people to benefit from their resources whereas all of the above are supposed to have equality of resources/opportunities according to our states" core belief irrelevant of whether or not they won the lottery of being born into a "truegod"ism" community."

This is Pros own assertion (from his false religion example). Taking the example of a "trans gendered" charity, would they allow for donations to go towards religious charities? Would an anti-abuse charity wish for its funds to be spent on religious/ethnic charities? The answer is most likely no--and naturally, they wouldn't be obliged to. Your point about AIDS is undermined by the fact that religious charities do give assistance to those suffering from it.

The Catholic Church for example, assists millions of people suffering from AIDS around the world each year. The World Jewish relief charity is also currently providing support those in Ebola infected countries, Rwanda, Ukraine, Poland, Moldova and places such as India and the Philippines.

[4.] http://www.crs.org...

[5.] http://www.catholicnewsagency.com...

[6.] http://www.sharefaith.com...

[7.] http://www.worldvision.org...

[8.] https://www.wjr.org.uk...
Debate Round No. 2
iqpiblog

Pro

iqpiblog forfeited this round.
Emilrose

Con

No additional arguments to rebut as Pro has forfeited.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by iqpiblog 2 years ago
iqpiblog
i think i meant to say that society / government should be secular

sadly it isnt and is shamefully hypocrytical and religion and hypotheses' are hindering human progress
Posted by Greg4586 2 years ago
Greg4586
Do we honestly live in a secular society? Come on, think about it.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by jackh4mm3r 2 years ago
jackh4mm3r
iqpiblogEmilroseTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources to Con, conduct to Con for forfeiture. As for arguments, Pro's point is that religious and ethnic charities specifically focus on ethnicity and religion and that the State should not financially help these causes. Con points out correctly that these charities do benefit the non-religious/those not tied with race, and that even if they did a free secular (as opposed to atheist) society asks not "why must you spend only on one religion/ethnicity" but "who do you harm," and rightly shows that no one is harmed with a voluntary charity, but that harm is possible with the mandating of charity for those the charity does not want to support. The only thing I found disappointing was the notion that a tax-break is the same as financial assistance from taxes; otherwise an excellent showing by Con.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
iqpiblogEmilroseTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture