# First Amendment (US Constitution) and tax-exempt status for non-profit churches **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [April 10, 2012, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-amendment-us-constitution-and-tax-exempt-status-for-non-profit-churches/618365 "2012-04-10T14:21:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2012, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-amendment-us-constitution-and-tax-exempt-status-for-non-profit-churches/618365/21 "2012-04-10T17:58:56Z")
> [@shiftless](#): > > I have to wonder why advancement of religion counts as charity You’re conflating “charity” with “charitable purpose”. In this sense, “charitable” basically means “for the public good”. There are plenty of public goods that a religious organization provides to its community that have nothing to do with the advancement of religion. For that purpose, the federal government has a motivation to encourage the formation of similar organizations (be they religious groups, social groups, etc.). ---
**Author:** ![robert\_columbia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e79b87/32.png) [@robert\_columbia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robert_columbia)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2012, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-amendment-us-constitution-and-tax-exempt-status-for-non-profit-churches/618365/22 "2012-04-10T18:53:33Z")
> [@Hello\_Again](#): > > There are many theories about what “establishment of religion” means, but the current predominant thinking is that it’s ok to favor ALL religions, but not to favor ONE religion. You can’t do anything that “establishes” a single state religion as preferred over all others. If you give benefits to religious organizations in general, there is no establishment of one state religion. > > That benefiting religion equal to non-religion is a violation of the 1st Amendment is a valid theory, but it is not the predominant thinking right now. I believe this is correct. “Establishing” a religion would involve something like passing a law saying, “The official religion of the Government is the Pentecostal Conference of Salvation, Reformation of 1865. This church will receive direct financial support out of general tax dollars.” A religion can be established even if there is freedom of religion. For example, England has an established church but, unless you are hoping to be Monarch, there is no legal requirement that you follow the Church of England. You just don’t get funding from the Government and you have to go get your own money. ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2012, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-amendment-us-constitution-and-tax-exempt-status-for-non-profit-churches/618365/23 "2012-04-10T19:27:32Z")
It needs to be pointed out that the First Amendment doesn’t say anything about Congress not “establishing a religion”, but rather passing “no law respecting an establishment of religion”. The active verb here is “respecting” not “establishing”. ---
**Author:** ![What\_the](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f4b2a3/32.png) [@What\_the](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_the)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2012, 11:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-amendment-us-constitution-and-tax-exempt-status-for-non-profit-churches/618365/24 "2012-04-11T11:30:19Z")
> [@Munch](#): > > It needs to be pointed out that the First Amendment doesn’t say anything about Congress not “establishing a religion”, but rather passing “no law respecting an establishment of religion”. The active verb here is “respecting” not “establishing”. …or is it “make” ? Doesn’t “respecting” have the same meaning as “with regard to” ? ---
**Author:** ![What\_the](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f4b2a3/32.png) [@What\_the](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_the)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2012, 11:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-amendment-us-constitution-and-tax-exempt-status-for-non-profit-churches/618365/25 "2012-04-11T11:32:52Z")
> [@colonial](#): > > The EC should have been sufficient, stand-alone ground for banning school prayer, no? No. Either that or the people who wrote it and passed it somehow forgot about all the praying they were doing before, during and after the process. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2012, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-amendment-us-constitution-and-tax-exempt-status-for-non-profit-churches/618365/26 "2012-04-11T13:46:56Z")
> [@colonial](#): > > The EC should have been sufficient, stand-alone ground for banning school prayer, no? > [@colonial](#): > > Court decisions forbidding prayer in school appear to _dis_favor all religion. > > Also, I recall the NC Attorney General issuing an official public statement > about 30 years ago to the effect that law prohibiting atheists from running > for office was “clearly unconsitutional”. I am not sure the issue has gone to > the Supreme Court, but if it did the SC would certainly concur. > [@Chronos](#): > > If there were such a decision, it would indeed disfavor all religion. And maybe there’s some country somewhere where the courts have issued such a decision. It’s never happened in the US, though. > > What the courts have decided in the US is that agents of the government, acting in that capacity, are not allowed to lead prayers with those over whom they have authority. Which is something very different from what you said. > [@Terr](#): > > And that is, of course, why my kid’s “Winter Concert” last year included hits like “We wish you a happy holiday” (to the music of “We wish you a merry Christmas”). > [@robert\_columbia](#): > > I believe this is correct. “Establishing” a religion would involve something like passing a law saying, “The official religion of the Government is the Pentecostal Conference of Salvation, Reformation of 1865. This church will receive direct financial support out of general tax dollars.” > > A religion can be established even if there is freedom of religion. For example, England has an established church but, unless you are hoping to be Monarch, there is no legal requirement that you follow the Church of England. You just don’t get funding from the Government and you have to go get your own money. > [@What\_the](#): > > …or is it “make” ? Doesn’t “respecting” have the same meaning as “with regard to” ? > [@What\_the](#): > > No. Either that or the people who wrote it and passed it somehow forgot about all the praying they were doing before, during and after the process. Read what **Chroinos** posted. Neither SCOTUS nor any upper-level Federal or State court has ever banned praying in schools. (I’m phrasing that to avoid suggesting that no court ever has, because there’s probably some minor court somewhere which has misread precedential doctrine, and this board has a plethora of people who would find such a case.) What has been ruled is that Congress, and by extension the Federal, State, county, local, and school district governments, their officials and employees, may not require recitation of a prayer written by such officials or others, or prescribed by them, nor may they oblige any child to sit through prselytization by any person whether emoloyed by said district, a student, or otherwise, nor may they by action or inaction permit any student to feel pressured to conform to the religious practices of others. Students retain the right to pray, individually or as groups of freely choosing individuals. Nobody using the powers or resources of government may tell them to pray, not to pray, or what to pray or not pray – with of course a time, place, and manner caveat; the middle of a math final is an inappropirate place to break into audible prayer! The Religious Right is hot on this supposed “banning of school prayer”; what they don’t say is that students still retain the right to pray; what got banned was their opportunity to coerce the school officials into prescribing what prayers the kids would be expected to pray. **Terr** , IMO the music teacher needs to grow a set and simply state that Christmas (Easter, etc.) music is a longstanding part of our cultural heritage, which can be studied and performed without its being seen as an establishment of religion. Note that the amendment bans Congress from passing any law respecting \*an establishment of religion, \*, not “establishment of a religion.” To my ears, that means establishing any religious practice as ,mandative on the public. ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2012, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-amendment-us-constitution-and-tax-exempt-status-for-non-profit-churches/618365/27 "2012-04-11T14:08:22Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > Read what **Chroinos** posted. Neither SCOTUS nor any upper-level Federal or State court has ever banned praying in schools. (I’m phrasing that to avoid suggesting that no court ever has, because there’s probably some minor court somewhere which has misread precedential doctrine, and this board has a plethora of people who would find such a case.) What has been ruled is that Congress, and by extension the Federal, State, county, local, and school district governments, their officials and employees, may not require recitation of a prayer written by such officials or others, or prescribed by them, nor may they oblige any child to sit through proselytization by any person whether employed by said district, a student, or otherwise, nor may they by action or inaction permit any student to feel pressured to conform to the religious practices of others. Students retain the right to pray, individually or as groups of freely choosing individuals. Nobody using the powers or resources of government may tell them to pray, not to pray, or what to pray or not pray – with of course a time, place, and manner caveat; **the middle of a math final is an inappropriate place to break into audible prayer**! Succinctly put. But I disagree with the bolded part. Problem #17 is a _bitch_! ---
**Author:** ![Inigo\_Montoya](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inigo_montoya/32/124_2.png) [@Inigo\_Montoya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inigo_Montoya)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2012, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-amendment-us-constitution-and-tax-exempt-status-for-non-profit-churches/618365/28 "2012-04-11T14:46:32Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > Note that the amendment bans Congress from passing any law respecting \*an establishment of religion, \*, not “establishment of a religion.” To my ears, that means establishing any religious practice as ,mandative on the public. Does this mean that when I win the 2016 presidential election and am getting sworn in that I don’t have to do it with a holy artifact of any kind? Can I just hold up my paw and promise, cross my heart, hope to die, stick a needle in my eye, that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will, to the best of my ability, preserve protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Honest injun? ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2012, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-amendment-us-constitution-and-tax-exempt-status-for-non-profit-churches/618365/29 "2012-04-11T14:51:19Z")
> [@Inigo\_Montoya](#): > > Does this mean that when I win the 2016 presidential election and am getting sworn in that I don’t have to do it with a holy artifact of any kind? Yup - you’d join Teddy Roosevelt and John Quincy Adams. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2012, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-amendment-us-constitution-and-tax-exempt-status-for-non-profit-churches/618365/30 "2012-04-11T15:24:54Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > And that is, of course, why my kid’s “Winter Concert” last year included hits like “We wish you a happy holiday” (to the music of “We wish you a merry Christmas”). That has nothing to do with SCOTUS and everything do with a weak-ass music teacher and/or bitching parents. Many, many schools around the country perform explicitly religious music all of the time with nary a peep from the courts. A quick test for Christians to run to decide if something is acceptable is whether they would accept it from a non-Christian religion. Singing Jewish songs for Hannakuh? No problem. 5-times-a-day teacher-led prayers on a rug towards Mecca? Not gonna fly. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-amendment-us-constitution-and-tax-exempt-status-for-non-profit-churches/618365.md?page=1)