The statement of “ Money should be spent helping people, not decorating a place of worship” is a very controversial one. It could either be true or false, depending on the place, time and size of the church. It is completely true that the money used for decorating a place of worship such as a church or a mosque could be better-spent helping people as mentioned in the previous statement. However, I agree and disagree with this statement to certain extents.
I agree because, taking Christianity and churches as an example, it is taught in the bible that modesty is an important aspect of life that must be met. However, many churches seem to do the exact opposite. Decorating their walls with paintings, using stained glass windows and placing gold crosses within the church. Other religions such as Islam also spend a lot of money on the interior and exterior decoration of mosques. Filling them with golden calligraphy and a number of minarets that are all expensively done. This money could have been used to help the less fortunate and other people who are in need of financial aid.
I disagree due to the following reasons; firstly with places of worship being fancily decorated, expensively or not, it increases the amount of respect people have to that place. It also shows respect to, in some religions, god or the person of worship for that religion. Taking the Notre Dame as an example, the amount of money it brings to the tourism of France is extremely high. People visit it for pilgrimage, examining its intricate architecture and design and even to repent. The extra money this church brings in could help the less fortunate in many ways. Thus proving the previous statement controversial. Secondly, the aim of showing god the sacrifices and financial efforts that were made to his satisfaction and in satisfaction of his worshipers. This reduces the effect that the statement has on the decoration of places of worship.
In conclusion, I both...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document