>>>http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060302/india_nm/india239031
>>>
>>Doesn't this ruling open up a lot of "questions"?
>
>>I don't think so. It's not like a gun, which can kill many people 'easily'.
>
>That's interesting Jim... what if it was a gun instead of a knife?

Not being aware of any (established) religion that requires carrying a gun, that's more a red herring than anything. But, to answer your question, hand guns have been illegal to carry hear since we became a country and I believe that would, and should, take precedence. So a gun would be a no-no as far as I'm concerned.

>
>>What do you have in mind?
>
>Jim you're a very intuitive man.
>Questions like why is one group people allowed to do what others are not.
>Isn't this discrimination of some sort?

I think you'll find many cases in both of our societies where one group does what another group cares not to do. I, not being Sikh, would not be obligated by my religion to carry a knife (a special knife, by the way) so my "requirement" to do so would be phoney, likely with some other motivation, from proving a point to self-defense to intention to use it somehow.

As regards discrimination, I guess it is. But how does this "discrimination" harm others?... Especially when no such knife has been known to be used by any high school student to harm someone? It's not like someone else's freedom to use a water fountain or sit in front of the bus or walk in the front door of a business is being curtailed. And it was definitely harmful discrimination when someone whose religion requires them to carry a knife is not permitted to carry it.

cheers
>
>What if I followed a religion that required me to carry/do (fill in the blank)?