Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tom servo
Frankly, I know of no religion (with the possible exception of Sikhism, which is not on the table here) that requires the carry of weapons as part of services. As such, the plaintiff's attempt to tie the church ban to the free-exercise clause comes off as really weird, and not very sound strategically.
|
Does that fairly describe the issue?
Many religions do require periodic attendance at church, mosque, temple or synogogue. On what basis would the state demand an adherent make a choice between his rights?
I don't think we would accept a prior restraint on speech or assent to an unreasonable search as a condition to discharge of religious observances. Why should this choice be different?