當宗教遇上法律，也就是宗教作為行政的一環，在我國多元宗教的環境下更形複雜。除了還在審議過程中的宗教團體法草案，大大小小的行政命令占了宗教法律的主要部分。當我們質疑監督寺廟條例的不合時宜，並著手進行宗教團體法草案的推動時，這些作為宗教行政最主要法規依據的行政命令，其爭議和合憲性卻常被忽略。
本文即從最高法院95 年臺上字445 號民事判決出發，分析內政部 民政司「辦理寺廟登記須知」的問題和爭議。再從與宗教團體最為相 關的概念――「宗教團體自治」著手，建構其保障內涵。最後從宗教 團體自治所建構的保障內涵，回頭檢討「辦理寺廟登記須知」涉及的 問題。

When religion meets law, that is religion as part of the administration, is more complex in our multi-religious environment. In addition to the draft of the Religious Groups Law, which is still in the review process, there is only “the temple ordinance” in the religion relevant laws currently. The rest are all executive order. When we questioned “the temple ordinance” is outdated, and proceed with the draft of the Religious Groups Law, all the executive order, which is as today's most important religious administrative legal basis, are often been ignored.
Therefore, the Article will start with the Supreme Court 2006 No. 445 Civil Judgment, clarify the controversy associated with “the temple ordinance”. And then this Article will build the guarantee of the religious group autonomy under the Constitution, which around the religious groups. Finally, go back to review the temple ordinance from the religious group autonomy.