What grounds does a religious organization have for using the courts to
compel the government to prohibit certain activity?
The MN case, in particular seems entirely outlandish. If a church thinks
that guns should not be carried on it's property, then it should be working
to convince any dissenting members (and visitors) of that view. It should
have a level of moral authority that the government does not since it bases
that moral view on the authority of a deity.
For it to now turn around and ask the government to enforce a prohibition
that the government has declined (under certain circumstances) to enforce
is something that the courts have repeatedly thrown out. After all, the
government does not enforce moral rules that should be far more important
to religious organizations than peacefully carrying a weapon (for
example--not all of which apply to all groups--adultery, dietary rules,
holy day observance, charitable giving.)
And when the government has provided a method of notice which allows the
organization to enlist government authority and assistance in maintaining
their moral view (i.e. posting the signs or providing written notice), it's
baffling to me that the case is still in the courts.
To take one example, it would be like a church asking the courts to compel
the legislature to change the divorce laws as they apply to its
members--when the legislature has specifically provided that the church
could have couples sign court-enforceable prenuptual agreements when they
are married in the church. (Admittedly, this is an imperfect analogy since
a prenup agreement written today won't affect a couple married yesterday,
but as applied to the couple married tomorrow, it works.)
To sum it up, this whole thing seems to turn the idea of religious freedom
on its head. Instead of religious freedom preventing the government from
enforcing certain laws, this would have "religious freedom" compelling the
government to enforce a law that the legislature (for good or ill) does not
want to have on the books.
Lowell
Robert Woolley wrote, in part:
But suppose that a radically pacifist religious group *did* want to go so
far as to ban possession on its premises of any object (not part of one's
person) it perceived as readily usable as a weapon--tire irons, Leatherman
tools, metal-cased fire extinguishers, bike-lock chains or cables, ropes,
etc. Should this group be allowed, as a matter of public policy (setting
aside any particular piece of legislation for the moment), to set compliance
with such rules as a condition for entering or using its building and/or
parking lot? We can even stipulate that the list the group has compiled is,
by overinclusion and/or underinclusion, quite irrational. Does that matter,
if the religious belief underlying it is genuine?
Lowell Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun Control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
