>>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'.
>What do you have in mind?
>
>cheers

Freedom of religious expression is always a tricky topic. There are some religions which require ritual animal sacrifice. Would you allow that? How about one that required sacrificing a virgin to the gods?

To comment that this is not a valid religious rite is an infringement on freedom of religious expression. Who are any of us to make that determination? Yet, just as Capt Kirk kept finding ways to violate the Prime Directive, we as a society are constantly making exactly that sort of decision. Consider the case of a parent who refuses a child medical treatment on religious grounds.

Things like this seem, at least to me, about where one draws lines about what is appropriate and what is not. There are legitimate arguements on where that line should be set. (FWIW, my opinion is Yes to Animal Sacrifice, No to Virginal Sacrifice, and Unsure on faith healing as criminally negligent).

On this particular instance....A knife is exactly like a gun in that it is a lethal weapon. Why allow one and not the other? Merely the degree of leathalness and/or ease of use?

To bring it out to an absurd level.....

Suppose my religion had a ban against the wearing of clothing. Would you allow me to go to school naked?