3 ms·
> congress (the source of laws) does not have the authority to make any laws that apply to religious establishments It's not obvious that this is what was mean
by aj3 5y ago
> congress (the source of laws) does not have the authority to make any laws that apply to religious establishments
It's not obvious that this is what was meant by 1st amendment. Other interpretation is that congress simply can't make laws that apply exclusively to religious establishments.
EDIT: I must add that the interpretation you mentioned is undoubtedly the "canonical" one in public's mind, so the situation is unlikely to change soon.
- sneak 5y agoQuite the opposite. I think the layperson view is to read "respect" as in "Congress is not allowed to make laws favoring one religion over another". This interpretation would be compatible with taxing churches (as long as they are all taxed equally). It was certainly my view before I studied the topic. It turns out that congress is not allowed to legislate religious establishments at all.
- danaris 5y agoIf you studied the topic, then surely you're very familiar with what's written in the Wikipedia article on the Establishment Clause [0], which makes it very clear that its purpose is to prevent the government from establishing a state religion (including by favoring one religion over another), not to prevent it from making any laws that can affect religious institutions. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause