I think this may be a tactical move to cause a SCOTUS decision confirming the Bill of Rights means what it says.
Of course, librals will find the action anathema. (Pun intended.)
Long-term (several years) this could serve to strengthen the Bill of Rights.
It was actually a tactical move to prove a point on a local level...never a serious proposition.
It would be a stupid one. This very issue was ruled on in Everson v. Board of Education. Denying the Natural, God-given rights of individuals is a pretty perverse way of claiming to “strengthen the Bill of Rights.”