Flaws
"would be inconsistent with its mission to provide a safe sanctuary and welcoming place of worship."
"Safe sanctuary" for . . . the congregation? . . . the guy who shows up to shoot the congregation? We already know the bad guy isn't going to follow the rules, so making it easier and more comfortable to disarm the congregation by using "friendlier" and more subtle signage, thus avoiding giving offense while still accomplishing disarmament . . . ?
I'm not impressed.
"We're especially thankful that the court recognized and protected our congregation's witness to peacemaking and nonviolence in all relationships,"
Let me know when the "witness" proclaimed to
violent criminal actors achieves peace and nonviolence.
"It underscores the importance of freedom of religion in Minnesota,"
I'm not sure whether that means "freedom from being told
how to ban guns," or perhaps, "freedom from having to allow guns on premises."
Either way, I'm not impressed.
We chose to do this because it is our duty and obligation to confront a culture of violence and build a culture of peace.
Which will, of course, work out just fine, because if we disarm and smile a lot, then the criminals will also disarm and join us in smiling.
Wow.
Now there's arrogance
and meta-arrogance.
My answer is simple: if it happens that I attend a church, and said church ever decides to ban arms on premises, then I will gently inform them that, given that I hold my life, and the lives of those near me, sacred, I will decline further participation in a group setting that reduces security and increases risk for me and those whose lives I value.
If, in holding
the ideal of peace sacred, you enact conditions that
facilitate violence, then I won't be attending.
I checked, and I'm not on this year's sacrifice list.