It does require freeedom of religion. Other religions have places of worship on post. Under our constitution we cannot discriminate just because we don’t like what someone else is worshipping. In fact it is FOR that reason that freedom of religion is so important.
Under our Constitution we can discriminate just because we don’t like what someone is worshipping. The federal government, under the Constitution, is restricted in certain ways, but even it doesn’t have to be neutral, and even after several decades of unconstitutional “interpretation” of the Constitution it still isn’t.
If you doubt me, try presenting a 1st Amendment defense to a polygamy charge, a human or animal sacrifice charge, or a cannibalism charge. With leftists in control of the law schools and culture generally, this may change, but for now the courts will still enforce these restrictions like these on religion.
What you are advocating is a metastasizing form of the leftist jurisprudence first injected into the case law in 1947 by a former Klansman, Hugo Black, and developed into its full pathology by the Warren Court and subsequent courts. There is no “freedom of exercise” reason at all that the government has to build a “stone circle”. Even under the most liberal current caselaw, the legal standard is met if cadets are not prohibited from practicing witchcraft.
In any sane society, people’s critical faculties would not go into instant paralysis the moment a catch phrase like “freedom of religion” is invoked. As Oliver Wendell Holmes once observed, “A good catch phrase can set critical thinking back fifty years.” In this case, An applicant who thinks he or she is a warlock or a witch should no more be considered for admission to the Academy than an applicant that thinks he is a cantelope or a carrot.