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

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...