Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof?

Question

why do churches not have to pay taxes? is this not a law that respects religion?

Answer 1

Churches are allegedly not for profit...

Answer 2

In the sentence, "respecting" means "about." Thus, the translation: Congress can't make any laws that would either establish an official state religion or that would prohibit someone from practicing their religion.

It has nothing to do with whether or not churches are tax-exempt or not.

Answer 3

This is an example of how the use of language changes over time.
For "respecting" try reading "pertaining to", and the statement will make more sense to you.
To say that Congress may not show respect to a religion is simply nonsense. They may not make any laws that pertain to the establishment of a religion...that is, there shall be no "state religion" in our land...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...that is Congress may NOT pass a law that interferes with the free exercise of any religion.
Umm...in other words, we can TOO pray, where ever we happen to be, as the Spirit moves us. That would be our right to the "free exercise" of our religion.
Satan is just gonna have to chew it raw and swallow...

Answer 4

"Separation of church and state" is the concept implied in the First Amendment. "Congress shall make no law..." means that the government will favor one religion over another. The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment extended this principle to state and local government. As for atheists attacking "free expression" you're asking a loaded question. The issue in cases like the Mt. Soledad cross and Roy Moore's Ten Commandments is whether these displays constitute government endorsement of one particular religious belief over another. The displays are on public property, maintained with public money, and are almost always exclusive. When was the last time you saw a statue of Vishnu next to a Ten Commandments display? The people who file lawsuits against these displays are asserting their Constitutional rights on the grounds that state sponsored religious displays violate the separation of church and state by discriminating against other beliefs. It would be no different from a Christian filing suit against a statute of Vishnu. (BTW, the people who bring these suits aren't all atheists. This assumption is another reason your question is loaded.)

Answer 5

Congress is not prohibited from respecting religion, but from establishing religion. So much for separation of church and state.

Answer 6

they do not have to pay taxes because then as a business they could get deductions and be able to participate in the political process. would you charge more or less taxes for a church. and if a church had the pull as a taxable entity would they then be able to sell votes for tax breaks. it just stops some corruption and keeps the chruch from being a political instrument

Answer 7

I've wondered the same thing. It has to do with the fact that they're not respecting a specific "establishment" of religion, but religion in general (which I think is still a bad interpretation of the 1st amendment, but I'm not a judge.)

Edit: Never mind, I think So-crates has it right.

Answer 8

Churches are under the category of "not for profit organizations". Non-profits do not pay taxes.

Answer 9

This is the government's way to control churches. They cannot endorse a political candidate. A church should never sign on the dotted line...they surrender their rights to free speech.

Answer 10

I think in this case "respecting" means to do with.

As in we should not make laws that have to do with religion.

Answer 11

not necessarily the law applies to nonprofit organizations such as but not limited to the Red Cross and others. all churches are supposed to be nonprofit. if not then they become businesses and subject to taxes. is it clear?