Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JN01
But those restrictions are made because of the supposed religious beliefs of the groups affected.
|
No, they're not. The restrictions are made because the legislature does not believe that firearms belong in any place of worship (as those laws are typically written). If you have any evidence that the specific belief of a given church played a role in the legislative debates, trot it on out.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JN01
If churches are perceived as pacifist havens where no instruments of violence should be allowed and government passes a law to universally enforce that policy, is that not promoting a religious view (whether it is correct or not)?
|
That's vague enough that I'm going to pass on speculating.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JN01
Are you saying that religious organizations can be singled out for any kind of restriction as long as it does not directly affect religious practice? Could a government body pass a series of nuisance laws aimed at all places of worship in order to have a chilling effect on the practice? What if those laws were instead aimed at all publishers? Would that not constitute an attempt to infringe on a free press?
|
Questions 1 and 2, no, but I don't have time right this minute to lay out the finer points of A1 jurisprudence for you. The short story is that some restrictions, if applicable to all churches generally, without respect to which religion is at issue, are acceptable. (Zoning laws come to mind.) I'll try to get back later to fill in some of the blanks. Questions 3 & 4, those are freedom of the press, not religious questions, and I'll pass on dealing with those, as they're off-topic.