Religion has a practical role to play in a post-modern society.

The motion is simple: Does organised religion have a place in a postmodern society? I’d say yes: The history books. The psychology books. Probably still in philosophy books. But as a tangible entity in a post-modern society? No. My argument is that a) the Church's earthly roles have been made redundant by social enterprises because of i) Social enterprises cost less on the economy/taxes and ii) are indiscriminate and iii) have a larger efficiency. If a is true, and the assumption of b, that in a capitalist society, the inefficient businesses are removed, then conclusion c, that social enterprises replacing religion is a positive move forwards, and its practical role has disappeared. The first question to ask is what a postmodern society is. Some say it came as early as 1492, when Christopher Columbus petitioned Queen Isabel to find an eastern trade route to Japan, leading to the new world, took place. Others say it came at the end of The Quest for the New World (around the 1700s) or when countries started to claim independence (1750s onwards), others still say it was the Renaissance, or 1914, or 1945. But whether it was colonialist changes, military changes, or cultural changes that dictated when we made a change into a postmodern society, an extraordinarily large number of cultural historians agree with the statement that we live in a postmodern society; it is not a point of contention because it is so widely accepted. Also, there is the definition of social enterprise. As according to http://www.socialenterprise.org.uk..., "Social enterprises are businesses trading for social and environmental purposes. Many commercial businesses would consider themselves to have social objectives, but social enterprises are distinctive because their social and/or environmental purpose is absolutely central to what they do - their profits are reinvested to sustain and further their mission for positive change.". I shall accept this definition, as it hold more weight than, say, the common usage definition of Merriam-Webster, and this definition is the legal & technical definition. The first point of contention is that the use of money in the Church is inefficient. Let’s be honest here: The church is a business. Not a business in the profit driven sense, but a social enterprise. A social enterprise is a business that’s main aim is not monetarily driven; that is, it does not set out to make a profit, make “money”. It’s main aim is to have a social impact on the community, and to make the community better. Examples include 15, a restaurant set up by famous British chef Jamie Oliver. It provides jobs to teenagers that cannot get employed due to lack of skills and prison sentences, and lets them learn a trade. Now, I would say that this is a worthwhile cause. This is a niche that is not filled by many communities, at least, definitely not the Church. It is worthwhile. But most importantly, it is profitable. It reinvests its profit back into the business to expand and help others, but it is self-sustaining. Now, let’s look at Organised Religion. More specifically, because it is the largest target, and most popular, and one that we are all familiar with, let’s talk about the inefficiency of the Church. I think the words said by AMI Church Consulting Services, on amiccs.com, says it best : You can probably save 40-60% on your church building plans. I can quote them saying this, word foor word : Here is a realistic example. The church gets a quote on church architectural services for a 10,000sf building. The cost for your church building plans are quoted at $70,000. Using a pre-designed plan, modified to your needs and local building codes, and sealed by a licensed architect, the cost could easily be be less than $35,000. This is a company saying that they can easily cut in half your costs, without any sacrifice. If they could do that on the deficit… Now, is Organised religion discriminate against specific groups? I am not saying that religion is racist or anything like that (although I could make that point), the fact is, they do not help people of different religions:Matthew 10:3 -- These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans, but go to the lost sheep of the Israelites." Meaning, in the context, do not focus on those outside your faith, but on those inside it who are lost. This is just one of the quotes from the Bible, and I feel I could find more if you wish, but this is one that always struck out to me because of its meaning that non-christians are "lost". Quran -- http://www.hidaya.org...;http://quran.com...;[Charity is] for the poor who have been restricted for the cause of Allah...Also, Al-Qur'an 9:60 may be of use. Finally, are social enterprises more efficient? This is not a difficult point to make. Even though religious institutes are exempt to more taxes, many of the institutions are failing, with costs of approximately 200k a year in churches : http://stcletusparish.com...; in this report, you may find the lines: Financially, we finished the fiscal year with expenses exceeding revenues by only $30,000. This was due to the diligent efforts of our parish staff maintaining our expense, but more importantly, we were able to achieve these results with the generosity and stewardship of our parishioners... If we look at this, we can see that this church sees losing 30k a year is a great success. Amazing success, I'd say. Anyway, I feel this proves my point of inefficiency with organised religion. It also discriminates against certain audiences, making its effectiveness less, and therefore its use is no longer required. Thank you.