>>
>>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?
>
>I don't recollect there being any religion in present day that requires sacrificing a virgin. Maybe that's a reason why such customs died out. But if there was it obviously couldn't be permitted because it infringes on the rights of the virgin.
>
Having people bringing knives to school infringes on the right to safety of everybody else in that school.




>>
>>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.
>
>OK. In the case of depriving a child of medical treatment you are depriving that child of his/her rights. Parents no longer have "ownership", at least here, but rather custodial responsibility. A custodian is to make decisions in the best interest of that of which they have custody. Society has judged that the health of a child is more relevant than religious beliefs of the custodians and it is well agreed that children do not have the capability to make deep serious decisions on their own.
>
That's a fair agrguement. This, too, is a question about where to draw the line between a parent's custodial right and the child's welfare. By establishing the state's right to act as a parent in terms of medical care, the precedent has been established and could be extended to areas where you might not be so willing to allow the state to "meddle."
>>
>>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?
>
>So are plastic bags, string/rope (shoe laces), knives/forks in the school cafeteria, even if plastic.

Since I'm the one who usually takes things to the absurd level to make a point, I have to agree with you on these. You could bar all these things because they are potentially lethal. I think that would be a silly place to put the line (and I'm sure you do too) -- at least until there is a fight in the school cafeteria where, say, someone's eye is poked out by one of the plastic knives.

>As both being "lethal weapons" there is no argument. But I related in another message how 3 of us jumped a guy at school who pulled a knife on us. Couldn't have done the same with a gun in his hands.
>

If your example is intended to show that this isn't a big safety issue, then why prevent anybody from having a knife? Why is it only allowed as a matter of religious expression? Either it's a danger which should trump religious freedom or it's not a danger and should be generally allowed.



>>
>>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?
>
>Absurd for sure. No, I would have you and your religion outlawed through due process.


So we are agreed, freedom of religion isn't an absolute and doesn't exist unless you (or duely appointed representatives) agree with the concepts of the religion?