I'm venturing into unfamiliar territory, but I think the church may have significant grounds.
1) The 1st Am. prohibition against free exercise of religion means, in part, that churches religious doctrine cannot be interfered with. 2) If a church holds that the presence of guns are in some way offensive to their religious tenets, the there is a conflict of rights (and given the rather pacifistic leanings of various religions, the claim is not a big stretch). 3) Since the 1st Am. right is constitutional, and the CCW right is legislative . . . > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Lowell C. Savage > Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 10:34 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Takings > > 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 [email protected] 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. > > _______________________________________________ To post, send message to [email protected] 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.
