This book is an apologetic for maintaining the presumption of public benefit for the charitable category ‘advancement of religion’ in democratic countries within the English common law tradition. The argument consists of three broad fronts. First, there is the quantitative approach that considers practical public benefits, such as church-run soup kitchens or summer camps. Second, there is the qualitative approach that considers the positive effects of religion – both tangible and intangible – in the lives of individuals. Third, there is the political approach that appeals to the notion of pluralism in a free and democratic society, where individuals are free to establish religious communities that engage in the public square. To varying degrees, all of these approaches are canvassed in this book.

To set the stage, it is important to consider the motivation or context for commencing this project. The immediate impetus came from growing academic and political pressure to reform or modernize charity law in Canada – including recurring calls to remove tax exemptions granted to religious charities. This book serves, therefore, as an extended rebuttal to critics of the advancement of religion as a charitable purpose. At the same time, any argument about the merits or deficiencies of advancing religion must necessarily engage with deeper, more fundamental issues. On a philosophical level, then, this book is concerned with the place of religion – and religious institutions – in contemporary society. Hence, this volume has relevance beyond the specific legislative or legal cases analysed in Canada, the United Kingdom or Australia, as it grapples with broader questions related to secularism, civic engagement and liberal democratic freedoms.

Advancing Religion as a Charitable Head

In terms of the political and legal debate surrounding the advancement of religion, charity law in Canada remains dependent on a list of charitable purposes articulated by the British House of Lords more than a century ago. However, as noted above, critics have raised questions regarding the continued inclusion of religion as a charitable ‘head’ or category. Given the increasing secularization of society, are past presumptions still applicable or, indeed, acceptable? After all, as researcher Don McRae argues, ‘the core of the Canadian definition of charity […] was created in Victorian England and was a product of […] [a] homogenous, white male-dominated society’.