Not logical, kingbee.  And certainly not in the context of the time.  In fact, the 'other' part of Article I, (conveniently) seldom quoted, forbids Congress to make any law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Taken in isolation, the establishment clause has been taken liberty of, if you'll pardon the expression.

guy i used to work for was, for a time, quite fond of telling me if i wanted to determine someone's agenda, turn what that person was saying 180 degrees.   in this case, i'd have to defer to his wisdom.

you've got it totally backwards.  states may not establish religion.  notta word's said about non-religion for the same reason there are no prohibitions against abridging non-freedom of speech or the press.

not prohibiting something doesn't presuppose a duty to enable that same something.

if you're correct, tax breaks for religious entities evidence where logic fails.  in fact, by aiding all religions in that way, government is unfairly and unreasonably imposing me with their share of the load.  works out great for church members cuz i'm helping support their insitution.

kingbee -

Where, exactly, is that written?  Congress may not, but there's nothing in the Constitution saying states cannot.

Article I refers exclusively to certain prohibitions imposed on Congress.  Where is there a duty to do anything (in Article I)?  How does permitting the free exercise of religion 'aid all religions' in your sense of the phrase?  Where things get knotty is when the equal protection clause gets brought in.

BTW, you are not supporting any institution by virtue of its tax-exempt status - fact is, they are not supporting you - but I'd expect a liberal to think as you do.

You are granting those institutions a privilege, they are exempt, for some reason, from the duties other organisations have. That certainly constitutes "support", doesn't it?

Not that I am against such privileges for organisations open to the public and offering their services for free. But it is hardly an example of government not supporting religion.

Nope, not 'granting' anything.  Organizations don't have 'duties' in this context.  The people, through its elected representatives, chose to levy taxes on individuals and corporations and, in no small part due to Article I, exempted religious organizations from taxation.  That is not 'support' in my book, simply adherence to the Constitution.

How religious organizations use the money they collect & earn from investments should be considered in whether they qualify for tax-exempt status in my opinion.  For instance, the money spent by the Mormon Church (and other organized churches) campaigning for California Prop 8 should disqualify them - separation of church and state (a whole 'nother subject, not related directly to taxation) is or should be a two-way proposition and if religious organizations want the power to influence political issues with their money, they should be prepared to be subject to the same laws as the rest of us.

Would it still be "adherence to the Constitution" to exempt, say, openly racist organisations from tax payer duties or do you think such a policy would contradict the idea that government shouldn't support racism?

If government grants privileges to some, government IS supporting them.

Non-sequitor & nonsense, Leauki.  We're talking about Article I.

And you have things backwards - government doesn't grant privileges, at least here in the US - the people grant the government limited powers.

Which means I am not allowed to use examples? I didn't realise.

We were just talking about a government-granted privilege (tax exemption), and now you are telling me that that cannot happen? Or are you saying that government-granted privileges must not be discussed because they do not officially exist (although tax exempt status does exist)?

I totally don't understand your little game there.

Do you or do you not acknowledge that paying taxes is a duty and that being exempt from paying taxes is a privilege?

Do you or do you not acknowledge that being granted a privilege by government is a form of government support?

Your example makes no sense and is not germaine.

Easy question.  Paying taxes is not an inherent duty.  It is an obligation, permitted by amendment to the Constitution, affirmatively imposed, through our elected representatives, on specific entities.  Those not subject to paying taxes have no 'duty' of any sort and they are not beneficiaries of any 'privileges' - the concept of privilege in this context requires universal obligation or duty as a pre-requisite and there is none.

Another easy question.  Since government doesn't 'grant privileges,' not being subject to certain specific obligations or laws is not 'support.'

I don't think you even read it.

Lots of words but even replacing the word "duty" with "obligation" does not change the fact that if everybody else has the obligation and Paul does not, Paul is privileged.

You say "since doesn't grant privileges" as if that was an accepted principle. But you do realise that I have pointed out that tax exempt status IS a privilege, obviously granted by government?

Well, if everything is 'obvious' we're wasting our time discussing it.  You've done nothing to 'prove' that tax-exempt status is a 'privilege' but claim it is so.  As even Obama said, words matter.  There is no question that the government wants to foster this notion that it 'grants privileges' and that some buy it, but there is no Constitutional basis for such a relationship.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/privilege

A special advantage, immunity, permission, right, or benefit granted to or enjoyed by an individual, class, or caste.

Key word there is 'special' - a 'difference' in how a law is applied is not a privilege in the common-sense meaning of the word.  The absence of a duty is not the same thing as a privilege.  You can call it hair-splitting if you want but it is an important distinction.